[Senate Hearing 107-759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-759
HIGHWAY SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
FEBRUARY 27, 2002--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committees on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
82-802 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
HARRY REID, Nevada CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
TED STEVENS, Alaska
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Rogoff
Kate Hallahan
Paul Doerrer (Minority)
Administrative Support
Angela Lee
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Patty Murray........................ 1
Statement of Hon. Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D., Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation................................................. 3
Safety partnerships.............................................. 4
Traffic safety--a personal responsibility........................ 4
National Public Health Emergency................................. 4
Seat belt use increase........................................... 5
Primary belt laws required....................................... 5
Impaired driving................................................. 5
Other dangerous driving behavior................................. 5
Strong vehicle safety component.................................. 6
Compliance testing............................................... 6
Prepared statement of Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D...................... 6
Program highlights............................................... 7
Program budget details........................................... 9
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 17
Statement of Hon. Marion C. Blakey, Chairman, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Statement of Millie I. Webb, President, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving........................................................ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Overview......................................................... 27
Traffic safety funding........................................... 28
.08 percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC).................... 29
Repeat/high risk offenders....................................... 29
Underage drinking................................................ 29
Open container................................................... 29
Statement of Superintendent James W. McMahon, New York State
Police, General Chair, Division of State and Provincial Police,
International Association of Chiefs of Police.................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Reduced core program request..................................... 39
Truck and motorcycle safety...................................... 40
Share the road................................................... 42
Impaired driving program......................................... 43
Seat belt use in alcohol-related crashes......................... 43
Unspent alcohol program funds.................................... 45
Origin of impaired driving problem............................... 47
National leadership need......................................... 48
Repeat offender funds............................................ 49
Seat belt goal revision.......................................... 52
Need for near-term targets....................................... 52
Click it or ticket program....................................... 53
Targeting diverse populations.................................... 54
Lobbying restrictions............................................ 55
HIGHWAY SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray and Campbell.
opening statement of senator patty murray
Senator Murray. This subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. This is our subcommittee's third hearing this
year on the President's request for the Department of
Transportation for 2003. During our first two hearings, we
examined in detail the multi-billion dollar increases that are
being proposed to enhance transportation security. Just within
the budgets for the Coast Guard and the new Transportation
Security Administration, the Administration is requesting
increased funding of more than $5 billion.
This funding is intended to protect the American public
against several serious threats, some of them unknown. The goal
is to keep the horror of the World Trade Center tragedy from
repeating itself, and I firmly support that goal.
But today's hearing is about the funding needed to combat a
known threat, the fact that tens of thousands of citizens die
on our highways each and every year. In 2001, we experienced
almost 42,000 deaths on our highway. That is equivalent to more
than one World Trade Center tragedy per month.
We do not know if or when the Al Quaida network will again
strike the American people, but we do know for sure that absent
a dramatic change in attitude, leadership and action at the
Federal, State and local level, highway deaths in 2003 will
rise for a fourth consecutive year.
We know how to prevent many highway fatalities. We know
that improved seat belt use saves lives. We know that keeping
drunk drivers off the road saves lives. We know that strapping
babies into approved child safety seats saves lives.
As a society, we made great strides during the 1980s and
1990s in changing driver behavior and reducing highway deaths.
Much of the credit for those advances belongs to the Mothers
Against Drunk Driving. So I am especially pleased and honored
that Millie Webb, the president of MADD will deliver her first
testimony before Congress during our hearing this morning.
Perhaps more than any other organization, MADD has pushed
our society to do the right thing in getting drunk drivers off
the roads. Their efforts are born out of shocking and horrific
losses that their members have endured.
Yet for all of the advances we made in the 1980s and 1990s,
we are now seeing a reversal of this trend.
Highway fatalities rose again last year and alcohol-related
highway fatalities rose even faster. I am sorry to say that
when it comes to the percentage of highway fatalities that are
alcohol related, my home State of Washington is persistently
above the national average. It is especially true for accidents
involving individuals that are certifiably drunk, not just
accidents involving people that have been doing some drinking.
My State has sought to do the right thing. We lowered the
admissible blood alcohol content for drivers before this
subcommittee required it as a matter of Federal law. But
Washington, like all other States, has a long way to go.
The time has come for us to admit that when it comes to
reducing highway fatalities, the easy things have already been
done. The time has now come to take on the harder challenges:
Challenges like getting repeat drunk drivers off the road and
keeping them off the road permanently; challenges like
addressing head-on the needs of certain target populations who
bear a much higher risk of dying on the highway than the
average American.
African-American children from ages five through twelve
face a risk of dying in a car crash that is almost three times
as great as that of white children. Highway death rates for
Native Americans are a disgrace that should worry all
Americans.
Precisely at this time when we should be taking on these
tougher challenges, the Bush Administration has abdicated its
leadership on this issue.
This Administration has requested a $5 billion funding
increase for transportation security, and I support that. When
it comes to addressing another scourge that kills a great many
Americans, the Bush Administration has requested a 22 percent
funding increase for the National Cancer Institute, and I
support that.
But when it comes to addressing the number one cause of
death for Americans between the ages of 4 and 33 years old,
this Administration is proposing an increase of four one-
hundredths of a percent. That is effectively a hard freeze on
funding.
When you dig into the details of the Bush Administration's
proposal, you find that very real cuts and terminations are
recommended for initiatives that address the most critical
problems in highway safety. Under this budget, funding for
drunken driving prevention has been decreased by 22 percent.
Funding to boost seat belt use has been reduced by 14 percent,
and funding for safety standards is reduced by 20 percent.
Last year despite the fact that it was not requested by the
Administration, the subcommittee earmarked $10 million for the
Click It or Ticket campaign, a program that's designed to boost
seat belt use. We did it for one reason only: Because data
supplied by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
indicated the program works in getting more people to buckle
up. But the Bush Administration budget proposes that this
effort be terminated in 2003.
Last year, the Bush Administration submitted its
performance plan and established a goal to boost seat belt use
to 86 percent in 2001 and 87 percent in 2002. For 2001, they
missed the goal by a huge margin, 13 percent.
So today, we find that the Administration has just given
up. They lowered their goal for 2002 to 78 percent. Rather than
redoubling their efforts to save lives, they're writing those
lives off and cutting their safety budget.
These proposals, in my view, are unacceptable and
irresponsible. It is my fervent hope that when it comes time
for this subcommittee to mark up the 2003 transportation
appropriations bill, we will have the resources to reject those
cuts.
We must move our States and local law enforcement
authorities forward and get our nation back on track to further
reduce death and destruction on our highways.
Senator Campbell, if you have an opening statement.
Senator Campbell. Madam Chairman, it is my understanding we
are going to vote in about 20 minutes, is that correct?
Senator Murray. Correct.
Senator Campbell. With your permission, I will just submit
my opening statement for the record and if we can get through
it, I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask on
truckers' hours of service and the new directive that will be
coming through with more Mexican trucks coming north, and maybe
a couple of questions on motorcycle safety too.
Senator Murray. Very good.
We will then turn to our witnesses this morning. We will
begin with the Honorable Jeffrey M. Runge, M.D., Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY W. RUNGE, M.D.,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Dr. Runge. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My oral comments will
summarize written remarks, which are submitted for the record.
Senator Murray. I would like to remind all of our witnesses
to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes.
Dr. Runge. Thank you. I will do my best.
I am pleased to make my first appearance before your
committee, Madam Chairman, on behalf of NHTSA. I welcome the
opportunity to testify on traffic safety issues, which are of
national importance, and on our fiscal year 2003 budget
request. I am also honored to appear with my fellow witnesses,
whom I know and hold in high regard.
Before I begin, I want to express my appreciation for your
support for the agency's programs in the past year and for the
particular interest you have shown during my short time here at
NHTSA. I look forward to continuing to work with you and your
staff on the Committee.
The top goal of Secretary Mineta and the Administration is
transportation safety and security. NHTSA's focus is on keeping
people safe on our nation's roads and highways.
We use the resources we are given in programs and services
that are results oriented. We strive to use only effective,
cost-efficient countermeasures to address the safety needs of
our citizens.
SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS
We work in partnership with a broad array of safety
professionals, including those organizations represented here
today. We understand our pivotal role in working with the
traffic safety community in States and local jurisdictions, the
private sector, and with safety advocates. We also recognize
that our influence extends internationally as we work to
influence safety worldwide.
As you said in your statement, Senator, the numbers speak
for themselves, 41,821 dead on our highways in 2000; 16,600
from alcohol impairment; and 9,200 died because they were not
buckled into a seat belt or a child safety restraint.
We know that to fulfill our duty to the American people we
must bolster our current efforts with new approaches,
especially in the areas of driver impairment, seat belt use,
speeding, and other unsafe practices like distracted and
arrogant driving.
To assist in these efforts, we are requesting $430 million
in fiscal year 2003, which is an increase of $6 million over
the current budget. The budget will support a balanced approach
to increase the safety of vehicles, as well as to tackle the
human causes of crashes in this growing transportation sector.
TRAFFIC SAFETY--A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
As a physician, I come to the table with decades of
experience treating victims of crash injury. I came to NHTSA
committed to ramp up our efforts to prevent crashes and to
reduce death and injury when those crashes do occur.
Although we will provide the science, the programs, and the
regulations, highway traffic safety is everyone's
responsibility. People in this country must take personal
responsibility to drive sober and responsibly, and to buckle
themselves and their children into safety restraints.
Private corporations must take responsibility to make the
safest possible vehicles and equipment and ensure that their
products can be used safely.
Our government partners are likewise committed to providing
safe and efficient roadways on which to travel. This has a very
successful legacy in keeping our citizens safe. In cooperation
with our partners, our programs have had a long-term influence
in reducing traffic crashes, deaths and injuries. But as you
said, the easier gains have been made. We are seeing that the
gains now are much harder to come by.
NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Despite consistent progress in the numbers since NHTSA's
inception in the 1960s, the tragic fact remains that traffic
crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans from four
to 33 years of age.
Every day 115 people are killed on our highways. Over 3
million are injured annually. And we expect the numbers to be
about the same in 2001 as they were in 2000.
Unfortunately, in 2001, we saw the first increase in
alcohol related deaths that we have seen in many years. And
motorcyclist deaths are up significantly, as well.
This is a national public health emergency. It is a disease
that is both predictable and preventable, and it has a cure and
a very effective vaccine. The most effective safety vaccine
available to us is the safety belt and the child safety seat.
SEAT BELT USE INCREASE
I am happy to tell you that seat belt use did increase six
percentage points from 1999 to 2001, boosted by a high
visibility enforcement campaign across the Southeast.
The bad news is that, although this is the most effective
tool we have against one of America's most urgent public health
problems, we have an unbelievably difficult time getting people
to use it.
PRIMARY BELT LAWS REQUIRED
Belt use has been improving by a meager two percentage
points each year. NHTSA will need to mount more aggressive,
more effective programs. But, realistically, reaching 90
percent belt use, or even getting the nation over 80 percent
belt use, to join the rest of the developed world is not going
to happen unless States enact and then enforce primary belt
laws.
The 28 percent of Americans who are not buckling up today
are much more difficult to convert than those who have
converted in previous years. We have the data on how to do it.
It will require consistent laws and enforcement throughout the
States.
NHTSA can help with programs such as Click It or Ticket.
But the States have to take responsibility for the laws they
pass or that they fail to pass to safeguard their citizens.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Impaired drivers are a nationally recognized menace, and
stopping them is one of my top priorities.
Our program supports what our research shows works: DWI
enforcement coupled with swift sure sanctions, strong laws for
repeat offenders, .08 laws to lower the average BAC on the
roads, administrative license revocation, and vehicle
sanctions, as well as wide-spread public education, including
designated drivers.
We are running a five-State demonstration of strong
enforcement, and we are witnessing improvements in alcohol
related deaths compared to areas without that similar
enforcement.
OTHER DANGEROUS DRIVING BEHAVIOR
Our budget is designed to address other dangerous
behaviors, including aggressive driving, speeding, and driver
distraction. Our programs will focus on effective traffic law
enforcement, demonstrations in automated enforcement and speed
management, as well as major public education programs.
STRONG VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENT
We have a strong vehicle safety component planned as well.
It includes vehicle crash worthiness and crash avoidance
initiatives and continuing to advise consumers about the
relative safety performance of new vehicles.
A strong research program is the underpinning for all
vehicular and behavioral safety programs, including our crash
injury data systems used worldwide to guide decision making
about everything from driver behavior programs to vehicle and
road design.
COMPLIANCE TESTING
The fiscal year 2003 request also provides resources for
vehicle safety compliance testing for new defect investigations
and recall efforts including full implementation of the many
provisions of the TREAD Act.
CONCLUSION
Madam Chairman, in closing, I want to repeat my thanks for
your support. I will look forward to working with you and your
committee in carrying out what we believe will be a strong
performance-based program that will achieve our national safety
goals. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Murray. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee: I welcome the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2003
budget and programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). As the new Administrator for NHTSA, I am
looking forward to working with you. The long-standing support of this
Committee has allowed NHTSA to make significant advances in highway
safety for the Nation. I am very pleased to appear with the other panel
members to discuss significant highway safety issues.
NHTSA's fiscal year 2003 budget request of $430 million supports
the Administration's goals of providing a citizen centered, results
oriented, and market based government. In concert with the Department
of Transportation's priorities of safety and security, growing
transportation system capacity, and fostering competition, NHTSA's
budget supports programs directed at significantly improving the
Nation's highway safety by reducing the number of highway-related
fatalities and injuries and the resultant traffic-related health care
and other economic costs. The agency's highway safety programs continue
to place primary emphasis on developing, promoting, and implementing
national educational, engineering, and enforcement programs aimed at
reducing the number and severity of road collisions and mitigating the
consequences of crashes.
NHTSA's programs have demonstrated a long-standing positive
influence on decreasing highway traffic-related injuries and their
devastating economic impact, which amounts to over $150 billion
annually. We are pleased to report that the Department has met both the
highway fatality and injury targets established for fiscal year 2000.
As a result of NHTSA's continuing program support, traffic fatalities
decreased from 51,091 in 1980 to 41,821 in 2000. Non-occupant
fatalities also continue to decline, and fatalities among children aged
0 to 4 and 5 to 15 are steadily decreasing. The child passenger
restraint use rate has also risen radically over the past few years, as
child passenger fatalities continue to decline. From 1990 to 2000, the
number of younger drivers (aged 15 to 24 years old) involved in fatal
crashes declined 14 percent, and the percentage of intoxicated drivers
in the 16 to 20 year old group who are involved in fatal crashes
declined by 29 percent. In addition, passenger vehicle occupant
fatalities and non-occupant fatalities both declined, 0.1 percent and
4.6 percent, respectively, from 1999 to 2000.
However, despite this impressive track record, recent statistics
reveal motorcycle fatalities are up 15 percent from 1999; vehicle
crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for persons aged 4 to
33; and although seat belt use increased by 6 percent from 1999 to
2001, it improved by only two percentage points over the last 2 years.
In addition, alcohol-related fatalities increased from 38 percent in
1999 to 40 percent in 2000. Obviously, much more needs to be done, and
NHTSA is dedicated to meeting the challenges.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Results Oriented Performance Measures
NHTSA's fiscal year 2003 budget is both performance-based and
results oriented. In order to assure that our programs are working, we
need to have reasonable targets and reliable methods to measure our
progress. To that end, one of the most significant changes in the way
we conduct business is our recent development of improved and more
realistic methods used in establishing and measuring the alcohol-
related fatality target and the seat belt use target.
Alcohol-related Fatality Target Revision
The targets specified in the Agency's fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
year 2002 performance plans were interpretations of a goal to reduce
alcohol-related highway fatalities to 11,000 by 2005. The measure used
to track progress toward those targets, percentage of highway
fatalities that are alcohol related, does not present an accurate
picture of progress. This is because, as overall fatalities decline--
due to increases in seat belt use and effects of other safety
countermeasures--the percentages of alcohol-related fatalities could
increase. NHTSA is currently analyzing data from previous years and
developing a more realistic performance measure and target.
Seat Belt Use Target Revision
Seat belt use in 2001 increased to 73 percent--an all-time high.
Yet, this rate was well below the 86 percent target for 2001. That
target was based on a stretch goal of 90 percent use by 2005. NHTSA
determined that this performance target was also unrealistic and
required revising. The agency has set a 2003 seat belt use target of 78
percent. NHTSA reviewed the individual State seat belt use goals for
2003 and the results of the analyses led the agency to determine that
the appropriate target for 2003 is 78 percent. This goal is reasonable
and challenging. Over the past several years the agency has been
converting approximately 8.5 percent of the non-seat belt users, each
year, to seat belt users. Continuing to convert this number each year
becomes more difficult, as the set of ``hard core'' non-users becomes a
higher proportion of all non-users.
Current seat belt use saves 11,000 lives and prevents 2 million
injuries every year. For each percentage point increase in seat belt
use, 3 million more people buckle up, saving approximately 226 lives
and preventing over 3,700 injuries each year. Achieving the 2003 target
will result in 15 million more people buckling up, saving 1,130 more
lives and preventing 18,500 additional injuries.
Citizen Centered Programs
Americans expect the government to assure their safety on the
highways. NHTSA is responding to the public's insistence on safer
vehicle travel and is taking the lead in developing new and supporting
proven program interventions. The fiscal year 2003 budget request
includes a strong commitment to changing driver behavior, improving
vehicle crashworthiness, and sustaining research and development
activities to support the agency's behavioral and vehicular programs.
The agency has provided the American public with strong behavioral
programs centering on the highway transportation environment. These
include impaired driving, occupant protection, and high visibility
traffic law enforcement. Recent success in the Click It Or Ticket
campaign demonstrates the efficacy of working with our State and local
partners to achieve our priorities of increasing seat belt use and
reducing impaired driving.
Involvement of our partners in the State and local governments,
safety organizations, law enforcement and judicial areas, and the
private sector has proven to be the most valuable asset to NHTSA's
program success. Throughout fiscal year 2003, we will continue to rely
on their expertise and dedication in adapting and implementing
innovative and proven strategies, as well as their continuing feedback
on successful techniques that the agency can incorporate in future
NHTSA programs. Emphasis will be placed on such programs as passing
primary enforcement laws, increasing enforcement of current laws, and
expanding public education on the benefits of child safety seat and
seat belt use.
The success of these partnerships is demonstrated through last
year's new Internet-based child safety seat fitting station locator
service. Using this on-line service, consumers may obtain local contact
information for a child safety seat fitting station or certified child
passenger safety technician in their area to ensure safety seats are
installed and used correctly. As of December 31, 2001, the website
locator had 3,464 child safety seat inspection sites listed, and there
were a total of 22,381 certified technicians and 1,037 certified
instructors. This year, NHTSA is partnering with Daimler Chrysler to
expand and improve our services by adding a toll free number, allowing
those without access to a computer to receive fitting station and
technician information.
In addition, the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline will continue to educate
the public about vital transportation safety issues and provide a
mechanism by which consumers can report potential safety defects in
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In fiscal year 2003, the
Hotline will be upgraded; using advanced features that customers have
come to expect from a hotline service.
NHTSA Programs Promote Safety and Security Priorities
Safety
We are conducting research on vehicles equipped with advanced
occupant protection systems, child restraints, and vehicle tires; new
technologies for field data collection; and modifying the existing
electronic data collection system; improving National Automotive
Sampling System data variables; and continuing to collect data to
determine real world effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing
injuries to children in motor vehicle crashes. Additional activities
include expanding our compliance test program to incorporate proposed
new standards and revisions to existing standards that become effective
in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
Fiscal year 2003 will be the first year of implementation of the
Child Restraint Ratings Program and the Dynamic Rollover Rating Program
for passenger vehicles. Funding in fiscal year 2003 will be used to
conduct tests for these two new programs and to develop and disseminate
the ratings information to consumers. Other efforts to improve the safe
transportation of children in vehicles will be supported through
testing to address issues that arise following publication of the final
rule on the upgrade to the child restraint standard, FMVSS No. 213.
Following the issuance of final rules for new tire pressure monitoring
systems, upgraded tire standards, and improved tire labeling for light
vehicles, by fall of 2002, the agency will investigate the safety
issues concerning retreaded tires on heavy trucks to reduce crashes
involving tire failures in heavy vehicles.
Real world crash statistics indicate that 42 percent of tow away
frontal crashes are full frontal, and 56 percent are frontal-offset.
Even after all cars and light trucks have frontal air bags, we estimate
there still would be 8,000 deaths and 120,000 moderate to critical
injuries in frontal crashes each year. This budget supports work that
will continue toward the issuance of a rule to address occupant
protection in frontal offset crashes. Other important crashworthiness
safety standards work will include occupant protection in rear impacts,
including improved seat strength; school bus and motor coach occupant
protection; and upgraded side impact protection. Support also will be
provided for improvements in crash avoidance standards, including
upgrades to the braking and mirror standards for heavy trucks, and
changes to the light vehicle head lighting standard to address the
significant public concerns regarding glare. We will continue to
conduct systematic assessments of all of our motor vehicle safety
standards to ensure that they adequately address current safety
problems and vehicle technology developments.
The Final Rule for frontal crash protection, using advanced air bag
technologies, necessitates future air bags to be designed to create
less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries than current air bags,
and provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants. NHTSA
is conducting cooperative research with industry in the development of
further advanced air bag technologies. As part of the research on
advanced air bags, NHTSA has completed a series of rigid barrier crash
tests with belted 5th and 50th percentile dummies at 35 mph as well as
unbelted 50th percentile dummies at 25 mph and 30 mph. The crash test
results showed that some of the vehicles are able to meet the injury
criteria established in the rule issued in May 2000.
Security
In support of the Department's national security priority, NHTSA's
fiscal year 2003 budget includes reviewing and establishing Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards that will contribute towards the more
efficient use of fuel necessary for the Nation's transportation needs,
as well as decreasing America's dependence on foreign petroleum sources
and supply disruptions. Analysis of manufacturers' capability to
improve the fuel economy performance of their light duty vehicles; a
review of automotive technologies that could achieve higher fuel
efficiency; the environmental implications of higher CAFE standards;
and the economic practicability of emerging technologies will provide
the basis for developing the most cost effective policies to increase
fuel economy and to reduce fuel consumption and costs per mile
traveled.
In addition, in response to the appalling tragedy of 9/11, our
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program will stress the integration of
routine EMS response capacity with terrorism readiness resources. The
program will emphasize system upgrades that will serve both routine and
emergency incidents and mass casualty needs, such as improving
surveillance and data collection and strengthening EMS systems through
collaboration with public health officials.
Market Based Programs Fostering Competition
Manufacturers continue to look to NHTSA standards and vehicle
safety consumer information as a challenge in creativity to upgrade
their products to exceed the Federal standards. These challenges have
provided bold and innovative achievements in safer vehicle designs and
have helped to stimulate a more competitive market place. In addition
to the NCAP frontal and side impact ratings program, and the new Child
Restraint and the Dynamic Rollover Ratings programs, this budget also
provides for vital work in the areas of safety standards compliance,
and of equipment testing, with emphasis on child restraint systems. We
are also conducting research in tire debeading and tire strength
requirements; possibilities for using advanced state-of-the-art
technologies to greatly improve braking in heavy vehicles; upgrading
safety standards for frontal crash, side impact, and roof crush
protection, fuel system integrity, and vehicle compatibility. NHTSA
research provides greater incentives for manufacturers to engage in
their own research to improve their products. Our program activities
all add to strengthening the American economy and encouraging
competition for product safety.
PROGRAM BUDGET DETAILS
Safety Performance Standards Programs
Funding of $10.4 million is requested to support the Safety
Performance Standards programs that include Safety Standards Support,
the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and the Fuel Economy and Theft
programs.
Safety Standards Support
The budget request of $2 million will support testing and
analytical work for issues that arise on the final rule for the child
restraint standard upgrade; occupant protection in rear impacts,
including seat strength requirements; improving offset frontal crash
protection; upgrading safety standards for the next generation of
occupant protection systems for school buses; examining standards
requirements for potential application to motor coaches; and upgrading
side impact safety standards to provide better occupant head
protection. Data collection for adapted vehicle safety and for non-
crash vehicle related fatalities also would be supported. Crash
avoidance rulemaking activities are planned for new requirements for
retread tires and tire pressure monitoring systems on commercial
vehicles to upgrade the heavy truck braking standard to accommodate
electronic control braking systems; to upgrade the heavy truck mirror
standard to accommodate cross view mirrors; to upgrade the light
vehicle lighting standard to address issues related to night time
glare; and upgrade the motorcycle standard to improve motorcycle
braking performance. Cost weight and lead time studies for rear impact
protection and bus emergency exits and window retention/release
rulemakings also will be supported. Consumer information work will
consist of developing new campaigns and materials on new and emerging
vehicle safety issues, addressing safe towing practices, and continuing
and expanding the Tire Safety Information campaign. Work will continue
on the technology assessments needed to implement regulatory review for
standards that have not had significant updates for many years.
New Car Assessment Program
Funding of $7.3 million for the New Car Assessment program (NCAP)
will support frontal and side impact testing. The testing will
represent about 80 percent of new vehicles when combined with carry-
over results from previous years on vehicles whose designs have not
changed. The tests will be split almost evenly between frontal and side
tests. In fiscal year 2003, tripped rollover resistance using the
static stability factor will be measured for approximately 100
vehicles. These tests will provide results for the same percentage.of
the fleet as for the frontal and side tests. The NCAP program also will
support approximately 100 tests to measure braking performance and
numerous tests to evaluate headlighting performance for planned NCAP
crash avoidance ratings. NCAP funding also supports Consumer
Information program activities to develop and deliver NCAP crash test
results and safety information through brochures, campaigns, web-site
enhancements and marketing initiatives. Increased program funding will
allow the agency to meet the requirements of the TREAD Act.
New NCAP information for the Child Restraint Ratings and the
Dynamic Rollover Rating programs will be developed and distributed to
the public. NCAP funds also will be used to conduct consumer research
activities to determine the type of information most helpful to
consumers and the best ways to present it; develop information for new
campaigns and materials on high interest issues, such as tire safety,
braking performance, and other emerging issues; expand the methods for
disseminating vehicle safety consumer information to reach more people;
and develop diversity initiatives and materials to better reach
underserved populations.
Fuel Economy Program
The requested amount for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
program is $1 million. To allow NHTSA to properly resume its
responsibility for evaluating and setting CAFE standards, following the
lifting of the prohibition in the fiscal year 2002 DOT Appropriations
Act, there are many actions that must be taken in fiscal year 2003.
Responses to a Request for Comment published in February 2002 will
assist the agency in determining what Model Years 2005-2010 light truck
CAFE standards are feasible and provide feedback on the findings and
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences study that was
released on January 28, 2002. The agency must publish a final rule by
April 1, 2003. Fiscal year 2003 funds will be needed to complete work
on several studies, including a manufacturers' capability study, a
technology review, an environmental assessment, an economic analysis,
and an update and expansion of the CAFE database. These studies are
needed in order to ensure that any changes in fuel economy standards or
the CAFE program are based on sound science and will improve fuel
economy without compromising safety or costing American jobs.
Theft Prevention Program
Funding of $51 thousand is needed to support data analysis
activities. In particular, extensive contract support is required to
carry out the analysis of insurer reports required by law. The 49
U.S.C. 33112(h) requires that the insurance information obtained by the
Secretary of Transportation from insurance and rental/leasing companies
shall be periodically compiled and published in a form that will be
helpful to the public, including Federal, State, and local police and
Congress. The report focuses on an assessment of information on theft
and recovery of motor vehicles (including passenger cars, light trucks,
and multi-purpose vehicles), comprehensive insurance coverage, and
actions taken by insurers to reduce motor vehicle thefts.
Safety Assurance Programs
The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $15.8 million for Safety
Assurance, which includes the Vehicle Safety Compliance, the Defects
Investigation, and the Odometer Fraud programs.
Vehicle Safety Compliance Program
In fiscal year 2003, the agency is requesting $7.5 million for the
Vehicle Safety Compliance program. We will conduct full-scale crash
testing of new motor vehicles for verifying compliance with, among
other things, the safety standards for frontal occupant crash
protection (20 tests); dynamic side impact protection (20 tests); upper
interior head protection (15 tests); dynamic rear and side fuel system
integrity (20 tests); and side impact pole tests (4 tests) to assess
performance of new technology for head protection introduced in new
vehicles. NHTSA also will continue its equipment-testing program, with
emphasis on child restraint systems. In addition, the agency will
expand its compliance test program to incorporate proposed new
standards and revisions to existing standards that become effective
during fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
Safety Defects Investigation Program
The Safety Defects Investigation Program identifies motor vehicles
and items of motor vehicle equipment that contain safety-related
defects and ensures that they are either repaired or removed from the
Nation's highways. In calendar year 2000, about 14 percent of the
recalls for safety-related defects (representing over 54 percent of the
vehicles recalled) were influenced by NHTSA investigations. New
initiatives under the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act include issuing an
``early warning'' regulation requiring manufacturers to provide
extensive information about possible safety defects. The fiscal year
2003 request for the program is $8.1 million. In addition to supporting
ongoing investigations, these funds will allow NHTSA to finalize
acquisition and implementation of a data warehouse for the Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI). This data warehouse will accommodate the
additional data to be submitted under the TREAD Act and will provide
ODI investigators with improved analytical capabilities, allowing the
agency to proactively identify potential safety problems in a timely
manner. ODI will also continue to address petitions requesting
investigations into alleged safety problems; monitor recalls to assure
that the scope of the vehicles included and the remedy are adequate;
continue its outreach programs; and expand the public's access to ODI
files through the Internet.
Odometer Fraud Program
Odometer tampering continues to be a serious crime and a consumer
fraud issue. In addition to conducting investigations of large-scale
interstate odometer fraud cases for criminal prosecution by the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Odometer Fraud staff works very closely with
State enforcement agencies, supporting their enforcement programs. The
fiscal year 2003 funding request is $150 thousand. In fiscal year 2003,
the agency plans to enter into cooperative agreements with four States
to train investigators and support State odometer fraud programs.
Highway Safety Programs
NTHSA requests $41.2 million for Highway Safety Programs. Funding
will continue to deliver an effective behavioral program to reduce
traffic deaths and injuries and achieve the agency's goals in reducing
impaired driving and increasing occupant protection.
Occupant Protection
The fiscal year 2003 budget proposal of $11.2 million focuses on
three major areas: seat belts, child passenger safety (including
booster seats), and air bags, while continuing efforts to reach the
national goals of 78 percent seat belt use by 2003 and reducing child
passenger fatalities (0-4 years) by 25 percent by 2005. Strategies to
reach the goals include expanded partnerships; public education; highly
visible enforcement; passage of effective laws; and implementing new
technologies. Activities include conducting semi-annual Operation
America Buckles Up Children mobilizations; documenting best practices
learned from Section 403 demonstration programs and Sections 157 and
405 grant programs; and expanding partnerships with diverse
organizations and other high risk and hard to reach populations. NHTSA
will also expand its outreach to minority audiences with national media
campaigns through the Advertising Council, minority media contractors,
and the utilization of credible spokespersons. The Spanish language
campaign companion low English proficiency materials will be expanded.
Child Passenger Safety technician training will be provided to Spanish
speaking organizations, and additional training for Urban African
Americans will be conducted. NHTSA plans a community demonstration
initiative to increase the seat belt use among sport utility vehicle
occupants due to the high rollover rate seen in these vehicles. To
improve child passenger safety, the agency will expand and improve a
web application designed to provide consumers with information on the
selection, use, and installation of child restraints in both English
and Spanish; conduct a Child Passenger Safety Week; develop initiatives
to increase booster seat use for children between 40 to 80 pounds; and
expand the network of public and private sector child safety fitting
stations across the country.
In addition, air bag safety activities include educating used car
buyers on air bag safety issues; expanding public information and
education to promote awareness of existing air bag issues and emerging
air bag technologies; and re-educating the public on dangers associated
with the interaction between air bags and front seat occupants,
including individuals of short stature, pregnant women, infants, and
small children.
Impaired Driving Program
NHTSA set a new goal for impaired driving to reduce the rate of
alcohol-related highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled to 0.53 by 2003. This remains an ambitious goal, since the
number of impaired driving fatalities rose in 2000 for the first time
since 1995. The NHTSA program, at $9.6 million, will continue to focus
on a four-prong approach: prevention and education; enforcement and
adjudication; legislation; and outreach through partnerships. In
addition to the current programs, NHTSA will complete highly publicized
enforcement demonstrations in five States and promote the best
practices that these evaluations produced. We will continue with two
additional demonstration States and engage partners in activities to
support enforcement and prevention efforts. We will also demonstrate
the driver history information records systems data model in several
States; continue training for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges
on issues related to detecting and sentencing impaired drivers; support
the development of new materials under the You Drink and Drive. You
Lose. Campaign; and prioritize and implement recommendations from the
Criminal Justice Summit. Physical screening for problem drinkers will
be expanded.
Emergency Medical Services
The fiscal year 2003 budget requests $2.2 million for emergency
medical services (EMS) to fulfill NHTSA's leadership and system
development roles. The fiscal year 2003 EMS program will stress the
integration of routine EMS response capacity with terrorism readiness
resources. The program will stress system upgrades that will serve both
routine and emergency incidents and mass casualty needs, such as
improving surveillance and data collection and strengthening EMS
systems through collaboration with public health offices. During fiscal
year 2003, the EMS program will maintain focus on the strategic plan
laid out in the EMS Agenda for the Future, creating new tools and
incentives for mobilizing emergency medical professionals to conduct
community injury prevention activities, and developing new methods for
assessing the community value of EMS systems. The Education Agenda is a
comprehensive plan for building an efficient and effective system for
educating new emergency medical technicians.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 highlight the need for better
communications systems for emergency medical services. Wireless E9-1-1
systems, in particular, must be improved. NHTSA will disseminate
technical assistance to support nationwide implementation of wireless
E9-1-1; develop a National Model Scope of Practice for EMS providers;
and market EMS programs, including Bystander Care, to State and local
affiliates of national organizations.
Drugs, Driving and Youth
The major objective of the Drugs, Driving, and Youth Program is to
reduce drug-impaired driving among youth. NHTSA continues to support
the recommendations identified in the Initiative on Drugs, Driving and
Youth, which addressed strengthening State laws; intensifying State and
local enforcement programs; implementing youth-focused education
efforts; and providing grants to States to initiate programs and laws
focusing on impaired youth driving. In fiscal year 2003, funding in the
amount of $1.2 million is requested. In addition to the current
impaired driving programs, NHTSA will expand State enforcement
demonstrations in two additional States, Indiana and Michigan. The
agency will develop and pilot test new comprehensive strategies,
including speeding, zero tolerance, and seat belt violations, for
reaching the increasing youth population. NHTSA will continue work with
the college community to reduce underage drinking and increase zero
tolerance enforcement. In addition, NHTSA will focus on developing
additional resources for prosecuting and adjudicating the repeat and
high alcohol blood concentration (BAC) offender, including treatment
and sanctioning alternatives. Action grants will be awarded to national
organizations, advocacy groups, and criminal justice partners to
support highly visible enforcement and prevention activities. NHTSA
will continue the national impaired driving public education campaign
to keep the issue in the forefront of public attention. The agency is
continuing to work with States and other partners to implement State
alcohol forums to examine State data and develop action plans and
coalitions for reducing alcohol-related deaths and injuries.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
The budget requests $1.3 million to support comprehensive
pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety programs. The programs focus
on developing and implementing strategies to: (1) prevent pedestrian,
bicycle, and school bus traffic-related fatalities and injuries from
occurring; and (2) prevent and reduce injuries resulting from these
incidents. New fiscal year 2003 initiatives include: pilot testing and
completing the school bus driver training program; working with the
Head Start program to develop age-appropriate pedestrian safety
training programs for children and their care givers; encouraging the
adoption of innovative pedestrian enforcement strategies by providing
small demonstration grants to communities; and conducting case studies
to determine the effectiveness of the Texas mandate for bicycle
education in elementary schools.
Motorcycle Safety
The budget requests $645 thousand to support a comprehensive
motorcycle safety program. NHTSA will continue to work with a wide
array of partners (e.g., motorcycling organizations, manufacturers,
health and medical professionals, and engineers) to support
implementation of selected recommendations in the National Agenda for
Motorcycle Safety. The agency will continue to support initiatives
begun in fiscal year 2002, including identification of best practices
in motorcycle training and licensing and identification of potential
countermeasures to reverse the increases in fatalities among older
motorcyclists. NHTSA will continue to support State efforts to enact
motorcycle helmet laws; to respond to repeal efforts by distributing
technical assistance materials upon request; to support innovative
strategies to prevent impaired motorcycle crashes; and to increase
motorist awareness of motorcyclists. Efforts will be made to work with
national organizations, especially public health groups, to educate
their members about motorcycle safety issues and provide workshops and
exhibits at national meetings.
Traffic Law Enforcement
The Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) request of $2.1 million supports
efforts to increase seat belt use and to reduce impaired driving,
speeding, aggressive driving, and other unsafe driving acts and
continue its efforts to promote seat belt and child safety seat use as
a primary responsibility of our Nation's law enforcement agencies. New
initiatives will include the development of model speed enforcement
guidelines based on lessons learned from NHTSA and FHWA sponsored speed
management demonstration projects; expansion of the community
demonstration projects with both the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and the Hispanic American Police Command
Officers Association to promote traffic safety in diverse communities;
expansion of training designed to reemphasize a broad based traffic
enforcement program; expansion of training designed to reemphasize a
broad based traffic enforcement program; expansion of training for law
enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to heighten emphasis on aggressive
driving; creation of a model process to help law enforcement agencies
improve their traffic safety planning process; sponsorship of a summit
to identify the gaps in the criminal justice system and to make
recommendations for corrections; and implementation of a traffic
enforcement technology project to demonstrate and measure the impact of
effective and efficient traditional and automated enforcement
technologies. NHTSA will also continue to collaborate with Federal,
State, and local partners to address the issue of racial profiling.
Highway Safety Research
The request of $7.1 million for highway safety behavioral research
supports efforts to determine the causes of crashes; identify target
populations; measure perceptions and awareness levels; develop and test
countermeasures; and evaluate the effectiveness of programs to reduce
traffic deaths, injuries, and associated monetary costs. New research
and evaluation initiatives in fiscal year 2003 will develop and test
strategies to increase correct child restraint seat use; examine
various technological approaches to increase seat belt use; analyze
belt use patterns from direct recording data; determine the
effectiveness of saturation patrols to reduce impaired driving;
initiate a study, in cooperation with the European Union, of the
incidence of driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol;
evaluate the effectiveness of assessment and rehabilitation programs
for older drivers; initiate a field test of a new system to reduce
illegal passing of stopped school buses; conduct a national survey of
pedestrian and bicyclist behavior; and examine trends in speed related
crashes.
Emerging Issues
NHTSA investigates new traffic risks as they emerge, such as driver
fatigue, increased use of cellular phones and other electronic devices
while driving, and the growing number of older drivers. The fiscal year
2003 request of $1.2 million funds activities including creating public
education and information programs aimed at reducing crashes, injuries,
and fatalities resulting from these new safety risks. NHTSA will
provide materials to law enforcement officers and the drivers they stop
who are drowsy (rather than impaired by drugs or alcohol); broaden the
social marketing effort previously targeted to older drivers, their
families, and health care providers to include State driver licensing
agencies and the law enforcement community; and use new research
findings to further refine public education directed toward users of
cellular phones and other telematics and additional distractions to
inform drivers about risks to themselves and others.
Traffic Records and Driver Licensing
The budget request includes $2.5 million for the Traffic Records
and Driver Licensing program to support the agency's increased emphasis
on the availability and use of traffic records. The fiscal year 2003
program will continue its efforts to improve the timeliness, accuracy,
and completeness of State traffic records systems. Driver licensing and
education focuses on implementation of Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL)
Systems. Funding will support State and local acquisition and analysis
of traffic safety data that is necessary to effectively manage traffic
safety activities such as alcohol, safety belt, and GDL programs. These
programs have been shown to be an effective means to reduce the
fatality and injury crash involvement of young novice drivers, with a 9
percent reduction in Florida, a 26 percent reduction in North Carolina,
and a 27 percent reduction in Michigan.
National Driver Register (NDR)
The National Driver Register assists State motor vehicle
administrators in communicating with other States to identify problem
drivers. The total number of inquiries has increased 69.9 percent from
1993 to 2000. More importantly, during the same time period, the number
of the more expensive interactive (real time) inquiries has increased
321 percent (8.5 million to 35.8 million). The fiscal year 2003 program
is requesting $1.1 million. NHTSA will continue to strive to meet its
customer service goal of: (1) an average response time of four seconds,
with all inquiries responded to within seven seconds; and (2) to be
available for operation 99 percent of published operational hours. The
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 requires the States to
make NDR inquiries for all license issuances. Currently, States are
required to make inquiries for all non-minimum age license applicants
and encouraged to check renewals. NHTSA estimates that the number of
inquiries could increase 20 to 50 percent. This requirement will have a
significant impact on operating costs.
Research and Analysis Programs
The fiscal year 2003 Research and Analysis request, in the amount
of $56 million, consists of support for biomechanics, crashworthiness,
crash avoidance, driver/vehicle performance, and heavy vehicle
research. The funding requested also supports pneumatic tire research
required by the TREAD Act. In addition, the request includes the
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, which provides vital data
on traffic crashes to the agency, the Department, State and local
governments, and the private sector.
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center
(NTBRC)
The budget request of $14 million represents a continuation of the
fiscal year 2002 level, which supports the four major efforts pursued
by the NTBRC. Biomechanics research is the cornerstone upon which many
of the agency's performance-based occupant safety initiatives are and
will be based. NHTSA will continue to fund seven Crash Injury Research
and Engineering Network (CIREN) centers, as well as a variety of impact
injury research, human simulation and analysis, crash test dummy
component development, and biomechanics of air bag injuries research
efforts. The agency is continuing its research program to understand
the special crash protection needs of the elderly.
Crashworthiness Research
The budget requests $9 million for the crashworthiness research
program. This funding will assist the agency in enhancing vehicle
occupant protection by providing improvements in vehicle structural and
interior compartment design, in combination with improvements in
occupant restraint systems. Achieving these improvements requires
research in analysis of real world crash experience; development of
test procedures that reproduce the crash environment; evaluation of
injury likelihood from crash test measurements; development and
evaluation of effective vehicle countermeasures; and estimates of
potential safety benefits. To the extent possible, the program also
fosters, through research, international harmonization of future
standards in the areas of pedestrian, frontal offset, side impact, and
vehicle compatibility.
The fiscal year 2003 research program will continue research to
support upgrading safety standards for frontal crash protection, side
impact protection, roof crush protection, ejection prevention, fuel
system integrity, and child safety. The activities include the
development of test devices and test procedures suitable for compliance
testing. The agency will continue to conduct research to address the
issue of vehicle compatibility by analyzing crash data and fleet
characteristics to define the safety problem and to develop appropriate
test procedures for evaluating aggressiveness of vehicles. The research
program also includes development of suitable countermeasures to
address safety problems, and evaluation of the effectiveness of
countermeasures developed. The side impact research will continue to
include full vehicle crash testing to support the short and long-term
rulemaking activities; analysis of the current and future U.S. crash
environment; and testing of vehicles to assess potential for
harmonization and for generating new consumer information. The program
will be expanded to include research on advanced restraint systems,
such as adaptive air bags and inflatable belt systems; pre-crash radar
and other sensing technologies; and automatically adjusting foot pedal
controls to suit various size occupants.
Crash Avoidance
Funding of $6.9 million is requested to support both driver/vehicle
performance and driver behavior programs. A primary emphasis of the
program continues to include understanding driver workload and reducing
driver distraction from in-vehicle devices. NHTSA research will
continue its driver distraction program to support four key objectives:
(1) understanding the dimensions of the safety problem; (2) measuring
the impact of different distractions on the driving task; (3)
identifying equipment interface approaches that minimize driver
attention demands; and (4) developing effective social behavioral
change programs. A major research initiative on adaptive driver
interface to minimize distraction potential and driver workload
management is planned. Research will focus on quantifying the safety
impact of distraction through unobtrusive observations of distracting
driver behaviors on the road; assessing voice interfaces as a possible
solution when technologies distract drivers from their primary task of
driving; and working with industry to develop requirements for
integrated driver support systems to automatically prevent drivers from
being unsafely distracted. Research will support behavioral change
programs by identifying factors affecting drivers' willingness to
engage in distracting tasks and by conducting surveys to determine
individual differences in how distracting tasks impact driver
performance. Some of this research will be conducted using the National
Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS); addressing development and
evaluation of new Crash Avoidance technologies and driver behavior,
performance and other research issues in the future. Among these is the
analysis of the complex driver-vehicle-environment interactions that
are a contributing cause of more than three-quarters of all vehicle
crashes. Furthermore, the development of standardized NADS test
procedures and scenarios will ensure comparability of data collection
across the range of studies planned and allow the development of a
comprehensive driver data resource that can support the development of
models to help predict driver behavior and performance under a variety
of conditions. Two additional research programs will be initiated.
These include the effects of age-related impairments on driver behavior
and performance and the effects of drug use (prescription and non-
prescription) on driver.
Pneumatic Tire Research
The TREAD Act requires that the agency conduct rulemaking to revise
and update the existing tire standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards Nos. 109 and 119. The Act also requires NHTSA to complete
rulemaking to establish a regulation to require a pressure warning
system in new motor vehicles to indicate when a tire is significantly
under inflated. In fiscal year 2001, NHTSA initiated a tire pressure
survey; an assessment of pressure warning systems in light vehicles;
and research into such crash prevention aspects of tire performance as
high speed capability, endurance capability, and tire distortion from
normal road and maneuvering conditions. This research provided a solid
foundation for the required regulatory actions program for upgrading
the standard, conducting a tire pressure survey, and conducting
research on several types of pressure warning systems. It also provided
a basis for additional efforts to improve the safety performance of
tires. Research was also initiated to study tire debeading and tire
strength requirements. In fiscal year 2003, $613 thousand is requested
to continue pneumatic tire research in these and other areas, such as
adhesion performance of internal components of tires, accelerated aging
of tires, and testing tires under aged conditions.
Heavy Vehicles
Funding of $2.2 million is requested for NHTSA's efforts under the
Department's initiative to reduce fatalities in heavy vehicle-related
crashes by 50 percent by the start of the year 2010. The major focus of
NHTSA's heavy truck program will continue to be improving braking
performance. Decreases in stopping distances from highway speeds of up
to 30 percent are believed to be possible by using disc brakes, much
more powerful front axle brakes, and electronic control of brakes.
Development of pre-crash data recorders will help to better define the
causes of heavy vehicle crashes. The agency is evaluating the
feasibility of using aerodynamics, similar to devices used by NASCAR
race cars. We also are investigating adaptive suspension systems, which
could be used to counteract incipient rollover; and stability
enhancement systems that can be made a part of electronically
controlled braking systems. In addition, research on improved side and
rearward visibility and the elimination of blind spots will continue,
as will research into improved truck occupant protection
countermeasures. The agency is researching the possibility of future
replacement of mirrors in heavy trucks and buses with video systems.
This could result in eliminating blind spots, providing vastly improved
vision at night, and reducing the wind resistance of heavy vehicles,
resulting in greater fuel economy. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the
agency will initiate a long-term research program to study the human
factors associated with these closed circuit video systems.
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI)
The Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) is focused on improving
safety through the use of advanced intelligent technologies for
collision avoidance purposes. The aim of this departmental research
program is to develop a better understanding of why crashes occur and
to determine how advanced technologies can be utilized to reduce the
number of crashes and mitigate injuries when crashes do occur. Design
improvements are accomplished by ensuring that the introduction of new
in-vehicle systems does not degrade safety and by facilitating the
development, deployment, and evaluation of effective driver warning
collision avoidance systems. In fiscal year 2003, NHTSA accomplishments
will include: (1) completion of the Automotive Collision Avoidance
System Field Operational Test; (2) initiation of the data collection
phase of the Road Departure Crash Warning System Field Operational
Test; (3) completion of the majority of work on the Collision Avoidance
Metrics Partnership project to develop fundamental pre-competitive
research on crash avoidance technology, human factors, and creation of
safety-focused map data bases; (4) initiation of a Field Operational
Test of a heavy vehicle, driver drowsiness alerting system; (5)
continuation of the development of realizable vehicle-based
countermeasures for collisions that occur at intersections; and (6)
continuation of efforts to find solutions to the problem of distraction
from in-vehicle systems. Funding in the amount of $22 million is
included in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) budget. This
amount is for the total IVI research program. A portion of this amount
will be allocated to NHTSA for the light vehicle research component of
the IVI program.
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS)
The National Advanced Driving Simulator installation, testing, and
acceptance at the University of Iowa have been completed. NADS became
operational in June 2001, thereby completing Phase II of the TRW
development contract. No funding is requested for the NADS development
in fiscal year 2003. However, funding has been requested under the
Crash Avoidance Program for NADS-based research, which includes support
for both ITS and human factors safety-related programs. Currently, NADS
research is underway to investigate how drivers react to sudden tire
failures.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA)
The budget request for NCSA is $22.3 million. Funding provides for
collection and analyses of data on traffic crashes and their outcomes.
These activities are vital to the traffic safety programs of NHTSA,
FHWA, FMCSA, and other Departmental programs, State and local
governments, as well as vehicle manufacturers, insurers, and highway
safety public interest groups.
NCSA operates the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). This
data collection system provides a census of all fatal highway crashes
in the United States. It is an essential data source for its customers
(internal agency and departmental modes and offices, other Federal
agencies, States, research organizations, and interest groups). These
data are analyzed and disseminated for widespread use. Activities will
include: collecting and coding the data from all 50 States, Washington,
DC, and Puerto Rico; creating the electronic data files, consisting of
about 41,500 crashes; and creating and delivering FARS system-wide
training to all analysts. New initiatives include geographical coding
of all FARS cases to provide locational analyses capabilities;
improving customer service through FARS website enhancements; and
linking the FARS data base with other national data bases.
Additionally, in-depth information on traffic crashes is obtained
through the National Automotive Sampling System's (NASS)
Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). A network of over 60 trained
automotive crash investigators conduct approximately 4,000 detailed
crash investigations in 24 locations throughout the country. Nationally
representative data on crashes occurring in the United States is
vitally important to the agency and to other users. NASS data are used
to assess the tendency and magnitude of the crashes in this country,
and the NASS Crashworthiness Data System provides more in-depth and
descriptive data of occupants and vehicles in real world crashes. The
fiscal year 2003 budget request is $10.57 million. New initiatives for
fiscal year 2003 include improved access of data files for on-line data
retrieval and analysis; improved crash severity indicators used on
regulatory initiatives; conducting investigations on vehicles equipped
with advanced occupant protection system devices, child restraints, and
vehicle tires; new technologies for field data collection; improving
current NASS data variables; and continuing to collect data to
determine real world effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing
injuries to children in motor vehicle crashes, in support of the TREAD
Act.
The Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program, requesting $1.7
million for fiscal year 2003, identifies and documents the effects of
new technologies in a timely manner so that the impact on motor vehicle
crashes can be assessed quickly. SCI investigation is the only method
to document the crash circumstances, identify the injury mechanisms,
evaluate safety countermeasure effectiveness, and provide an early
detection mechanism for alleged or potential vehicle defects. In fiscal
year 2003, SCI will investigate over 200 crashes, including those
involving advanced air bag systems, side air bags, and children in
LATCH safety seats. The latter will allow NHTSA to evaluate the
effectiveness of these emerging occupant-protection systems in real-
world crashes.
The Data Analysis Program, requesting $2 million, provides critical
analytical support to the various agency program offices to accomplish
their missions, such as the development of crashworthiness and crash
avoidance rulemaking, identification of target populations, and
monitoring and reporting of traffic safety trends. New initiatives for
fiscal year 2003 include: reviewing new technology to upgrade, as
appropriate, the current customer service response and tracking
systems; improving timeliness of responding to customers' requests for
the latest traffic safety crash data and information through
technological and process improvement activities; reviewing and
updating, when appropriate, of existing periodic reports; and
conducting analyses and providing reports in support of agency
programs.
The State Data Program is also a part of the NCSA. State crash data
provide information for analyses and data collection programs that
support NHTSA's mission. Program activities assist analysts and States
in their efforts to understand how to improve the quality and utility
of their crash data files. In fiscal year 2003, the program is
requesting $2.5 million in funding. A major activity will be to support
implementation by all States of a uniform guideline for State crash
data. NHTSA promotes the linkage and use of linked crash and injury
State data through a collaborative funding program for States. When
merged, the linked data have extraordinary value for highway safety at
the national level. In the process, the linked data will be
standardized, and quality measures will be developed. Technical
assistance, sponsoring research and meetings, demonstrating linked data
base usefulness, and awarding grants to additional States as they
qualify with the necessary crash and medical outcome data files will
continue to be priority activities.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
Through our performance-based grant program, NHTSA has assisted all
States in identifying their unique highway safety issues, developing
strategies, and implementing effective programs. NHTSA's State grant
programs support key Departmental initiatives, including goals for
increasing seat belt use nationwide and reducing alcohol-involved
fatalities. Each State has a critical role to play in the broad-based
regional and National strategic plans developed to meet the National
goals. The requested $225 million in State grant funds for fiscal year
2003 is critical to meeting the departmental highway safety goals. In
view of the high economic toll caused by traffic crashes, over $150
billion annually, our budget request is a small investment in State
highway safety support.
The Section 402 State and Community Formula Grant Program request
for fiscal year 2003 is $165 million. It provides for a coordinated
national highway safety program in every State, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Trust Territories, and the Indian Nations
for the purpose of reducing highway crashes, deaths, and injuries. In
fiscal year 2003, all States and territories will be continuing the
performance-based management process. Section 402 formula grants
support programs, developed and managed by the States, to address their
highway safety goals, performance measures, and strategic plans.
The fiscal year 2003 Section 402 formula request will support
national priority programs, such as encouraging proper use of occupant
protection devices; reducing alcohol and drug-impaired driving;
reducing motorcycle crashes; improving police traffic services;
improving emergency medical services and trauma care systems;
increasing pedestrian and bicyclist safety; improving traffic record
systems; and improving roadway safety. In addition, this funding will
enable States to continue and expand the Safe Communities initiative, a
community-based injury control approach to reducing traffic-related
injuries.
Incentive grant programs provide States with extensive flexibility.
States have the option to apply for these grants. If a state chooses to
pursue a grant, the State may choose which legal and program criteria
to implement. NHTSA's incentive grant programs are:
--Section 410 Alcohol-impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grant Program (requesting $40 million for fiscal year 2003)
rewards States that enact stronger laws and start effective
programs to stop drunk drivers and States that demonstrate
consistently high performance in reducing alcohol-related
fatality rates.
--Section 405 Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program (requesting
$20 million for fiscal year 2003) rewards States that implement
strong laws and programs to increase safety belt and child
safety seat use.
Formula funds are spread over a wide range of highway safety
issues, according to goals and priorities set by the States, and much
of the funding is focused on community-level programs. Incentive funds
target national priority initiatives that can make the biggest impact
on the safety bottom line. Incentive funds are used to encourage States
to implement tough laws and programs Statewide. When the States take
the hard steps, the reward is extra funding to help support their
efforts.
CONCLUSION
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. In closing, I
would like to thank you for your continued support of highway safety. I
look forward to working with you in developing a strong and productive
performance-based, results-oriented, fiscal year 2003 highway safety
budget that will provide National leadership through effective and
efficient programs. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Murray. The Honorable Marion Blakey, Chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Ms. Blakey. Good morning, Madam Chairman, and good morning,
Senator Campbell. I am very pleased to be here to represent the
National Transportation Safety Board, and I am particularly
pleased to be here today in my first appearance before the
Committee with a group of people who really are leaders in the
field of highway safety. They have made important contributions
over the years.
I have had the pleasure of working with Millie Webb for
many years, Jeff Runge, Superintendent James McMahon. As I say,
this is a group of people who really know the field, and I am
delighted you have assembled such a panel today.
I do want to say that the Board has worked in the field of
highway safety in a broad range of issues. I have summarized
those in my testimony, which I would like to submit for the
record. But I would like to just briefly focus today, if I
might, on four specific issues that I think are of critical
importance and I hope will supplement some of the issues that
others here are referring to.
These are the use of booster seats by children between the
ages of four and eight; the need for State laws on graduated
licensing; the importance of having standard mandatory seat
belt laws, primary laws; and finally the issue of drinking and
driving. I think these are four areas that the Board has
exercised real leadership on. And I would like to just tell--
quickly tell you where we are on this today.
Madam Chairman, the more we learn and understand about
highway safety, the more we know that the citizens of ours that
are at the most risk, the most vulnerable are our children and
young people. They are truly our most vulnerable passengers.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration points
out that over 90,000 children died in motor vehicle crashes,
and over 9 million were injured during the 1990s.
Of the children who died, 8,600 were between the ages of
four and eight. In 1999, more than 70 percent of those children
between the ages of four and eight were totally unrestrained
when they died; and 13 percent were wearing lap and shoulder
belts that their parents no doubt put on them thinking they
were protecting them and, in fact, they were fatally injured.
I think this is an issue we absolutely must address. The
chilling numbers really should call us to action on this. It
should be noted that Washington State was the first State in
the country to enact booster seat legislation, and that is what
I am really talking about today, the need for this.
I applaud the Senate also for passing Senate Bill 980 on
Monday, which, in fact, established a comprehensive approach to
child passenger safety and child restraints. Too many parents
buckle their children into adult restraint systems thinking
they are protecting them, and they simply do not.
Booster seats need to be recognized by the public as
something that really provides a continuum in the protection of
our children. When a child outgrows a child safety seat, they
need to be put in a booster seat. And this is unfortunately
something that most of our parents, I fear, still do not know.
Without a booster seat, what essentially happens is that a
child can slouch, slide forward. They can sustain abdominal
injuries because of the ill-fitting belt. Often I think we have
all seen children take that shoulder belt, put it behind them,
because it cuts into their neck. It is highly uncomfortable.
And what then occurs, of course, is we see head injuries. We
see fatalities that never should have happened.
Unfortunately, only eight States so far have enacted
booster seat legislation. The Safety Board believes that all
children of all ages should be properly restrained and covered
by our child--by the State's restraint laws.
We also think that NHTSA needs to look at the issue of the
booster seat standards. Right now, they have standards up to 50
pounds. They really need to go up to 80 pounds. And we think
this is important.
NHTSA also needs to publish a performance standard to
prevent the degradation of seat belts when we are using seat
belt adjustors for children. And they also need to require the
installation of lap/shoulder belts in the center seat position
in automobiles. And this, we believe can be done without
duplicate testing.
Now, a second area of board concern I would like to touch
on is the issue of the disproportionate number of highway
crashes that are sustained by teenagers. These are drivers
between the ages of 15 and 20, who just recently obtained their
license.
It is really a national tragedy. What we see here is that
young people ages 15 to 20 comprise less than 7 percent of the
driving population; yet they are involved in twice that number
of highway fatalities, 14 percent.
Graduated licensing is an appropriate and important step in
addressing this problem and reducing these needless injuries
and deaths. What we essentially are talking about is giving
young people a chance to adjust to the new challenges and
responsibilities they have.
Beginning drivers should be introduced, as the term
implies, gradually to the responsibilities of driving. And this
is something the States are more and more recognizing, but we
need to exercise real leadership on this, because it is
effective. And if we encourage States, we should have a
continuum of responsibilities given to drivers on a graduated
basis.
A third issue that affects not just teenagers and children,
as I have been talking about so far, but one I would like to
touch on, is--because it is so critically important, is the
issue of standard enforcement for safety belts. This is
something where--we have before talked about it as primary
enforcement, et cetera. And I think probably everyone in this
room knows what is at issue here.
It means that law enforcement officers need to be able to
issue a citation, pull a driver over when a safety belt is not
being used by a passenger or by the driver themselves, even if
they do not have another reason to stop the vehicle.
It is important because of some of the issues I was just
touching on, in particular--and I think we forget this--adults
who do not buckle up, they do not buckle up their children
either. They do not exercise caution about others in the
vehicle.
So this is not just a question of individual driver rights
responsibilities. A recent study found that when a driver is
wearing a safety belt, 94 percent of the children in those
vehicles will be buckled up.
Do you know what the reverse is? They are not buckled up,
only 30 percent. So I think we really have to recognize that we
are addressing a bigger problem, and we are addressing
vulnerable passengers, as well as those who are behind the
wheel.
Primary enforcement is one of the best ways to address the
broad problem that Dr. Runge was referring to. Just as it is
illegal to drive without your headlights on at night, it ought
to be illegal to drive without a seat belt on.
The final issue I will touch on--and I will do this briefly
because we have got the world's best advocate on this front--is
on the dangers of drinking and driving. This has been an issue
that I have worked on for many years. I think it is
terrifically important in terms of the attention of this
committee.
And in particular, I would like to touch on the issue of
the hardcore drinking driver, which is an issue that the
National Transportation Safety Board has worked long and hard
on, in connection with MADD and others. These cause a
substantial number of alcohol related fatalities on the
highway, these individuals.
According to NHTSA, over a 15-year period, between 1993--
1983 and 1999, at least 137,000 people died and almost 100,000
people were injured at the hands of hard-core drinking drivers.
These are the repeat offenders. These are truly the bad actors,
people who are driving with a high blood alcohol concentration
of usually over .15 percent.
We believe that the Department of Transportation should
evaluate changes and modifications to T21, the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, and look at this issue of
hard-core drinking drivers with new eyes, so that we can be
more effective in addressing the problem with the States and
developing a comprehensive system, which we fundamentally
believe could turn that situation around.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I will yield the rest of my time on the issue of drinking
and driving to others here. But, Madam Chairman, I would be
happy to answer questions. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marion C. Blakey
Good morning Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a
pleasure to represent the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
before you today on the subject of highway safety.
This is my first appearance before the committee and I welcome the
opportunity to talk about the Board's work in highway safety. As you
would imagine, sometimes our investigations and research into making
our roads safer do not receive the prominent attention that aviation
safety receives. And yet, 90 percent of all transportation related
fatalities occur on our nations roadways. Therefore, highway safety
will always be one of our highest priorities as we fulfill our mission
to make recommendations to improve safety, reduce accidents and
injuries and, most importantly, save lives.
The more we learn and understand about highway safety, the more it
becomes clear that young adults and children are especially at risk
each time they travel in a motor vehicle. Simply stated, our children
are our ``most precious cargo'' and also our most vulnerable.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), in the 1990s, over
90,000 children died in motor vehicle crashes, and over 9 million were
injured. Of the children who died, 8,600 were between the ages of 4 and
8. That equates to about 16 children between the ages of 4 and 8 being
killed each week in motor vehicle crashes. In 1999, more than 70
percent of the children between the ages of 4 and 8 killed in
automobile accidents were totally unrestrained, and 13 percent were in
lap/shoulder belt restraint systems designed for adults.
These chilling numbers should be a call to action for all of us. At
the Safety Board, we have a ``Most Wanted'' program that highlights
safety recommendations the Board believes should be acted on as soon as
possible because they have the most potential to reduce accidents and
save lives. The list contains several highway issues that focus on our
young people. Before discussing on-going concerns, it should be noted
that as a result of Board safety recommendations, many improvements in
highway transportation for our young people have been made. For
instance:
--Airbags are being de-powered in new vehicles and in some instances
an airbag on/off switch has been provided to prevent serious
injury and death;
--A nation-wide campaign was initiated to educate parents about the
importance of putting children in the back seats of vehicles
with air bags;
--Child safety seat fitting stations are available nationwide to
assist parents and caregivers in properly installing child
safety seats; and
--Shoulder belt anchor locations have been lowered in some vehicles
to better fit older children who no longer need a child safety
or booster seat.
While this is a start, there remains much more to do.
An issue that needs additional attention, and one that is on the
Board's ``Most Wanted'' list, involves the use of booster seats by
children between ages 4 and 8. Too many parents buckle their children
into adult restraints believing that their child is safe. We know this
is not the case. Booster seats need to be recognized by the public as
the next step in child passenger protection after a child outgrows a
child restraint system.
Vehicle seat belts, like air bags, were designed to protect adults,
not our smallest passengers. According to the Centers for Disease
Control Prevention, children who have outgrown their child safety seats
should ride in a booster seat that positions the shoulder belt across
the chest, and with the lap belt low across the upper thighs. Without a
booster seat, a child can slouch and slide forward, causing the vehicle
lap belt to ride up on to the child's abdomen, resulting in serious or
fatal injuries.
Unfortunately, only eight States--Washington, California, Arkansas,
New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee--have
enacted some form of booster seat law. The Safety Board believes that
children of all ages need to be properly restrained and should be
covered by the States' child restraint and seatbelt use laws.
With respect to the States and industry's efforts to address child
passenger safety, we look to NHTSA to continue to move forward on some
of our critical recommendations. I would like to cite these
recommendations that will require NHTSA support:
--An increase of booster seat standards from a maximum of 50 pounds
to a maximum of 80 pounds. This increase is being considered
under an upgrade to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213.
Until this change occurs, many States have been hesitant to
upgrade their child restraint laws.
--NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in August of 1999
to amend NHTSA's consumer information regulations and requests
information on the use of warning labels rather than
establishing a minimum performance standard for seat belt
positioners. The Safety Board views the changes to the agency's
consumer information regulations as an interim approach that
would not be an acceptable alternative to the intent of the
Board's recommendation that performance standards be
established for seat belt adjusters. The Board believes a
performance standard is necessary in order to prevent
degradation in performance of seat belts when seat belt
adjusters are used.
--Finally, NHTSA has issued a final rule enabling all vehicle
manufacturers to install and test lap/shoulder belts at the
center rear position without the need for duplicate testing.
Although NHTSA's study on the effectiveness of lap/shoulder
belts in the back seat did not examine the effectiveness of
center rear lap/shoulder belts because of the limited number of
vehicles equipped with center rear lap/shoulder belts, the
Safety Board continues to believe their installation should be
required because of the added protection they afford to anyone
seated in the center rear position.
Madam Chairman, another area of Board concern is the
disproportionate number of highway crashes that involve teenage drivers
between the ages of 15 to 20, young people who have only recently
obtained their license to drive.
Young drivers age 15 to 20 years comprise about 6.7 percent of the
driving population, but are involved in 14 percent of the highway
fatalities. Like other States cross the country, your State of
Washington, Madam Chairman, has seen a disproportionate number of fatal
crashes involving drivers between the ages of 15 and 20. They were
involved in 25 percent of the highway deaths in 2000 that occurred in
Washington. Traffic crashes account for 40 percent of all deaths among
15 to 20 year olds, making traffic crashes the leading cause of death
for this age group. Further, population trends indicate that the
problem is likely to worsen as the teen population increases.
Graduated licensing, also an issue on the Board's ``Most Wanted''
list, was first recommended to the States by the Safety Board in 1993,
and is an important step that will reduce needless deaths and injuries
on our highways and help thousands of young drivers to adjust to their
new driving responsibilities. The current system does not teach young
people to drive; it teaches them to pass a test. Learning to drive is a
long-term process, one that cannot be effectively managed through the
traditional driver education program. Once the mechanics are learned,
additional training must be ``on the job,'' without necessary
distractions, and with the assistance of a more mature and experienced
driver. As their skills and maturity develop, new drivers can then
proceed to full licensure.
Beginning drivers should be introduced gradually to the driving
experience. They should be provided the maximum time to practice, under
the safest possible real-world conditions. For our young drivers to
have the chance to develop, we need to create a support system that
involves parents and guardians.
Graduated licensing is effective, and provides the opportunity to
save the needless loss of many of our younger citizens. Currently there
are five States without any form of graduated licensing and 14 other
States only have partial systems. We need to encourage and support
these States in their efforts to strengthen their graduated licensing
laws.
An issue that affects not only our young people but all drivers is
the need for standard enforcement of mandatory safety belt use laws.
Standard enforcement means that law enforcement officers may issue a
citation any time they observe an unbelted driver or passenger. The
current secondary enforcement law allows an officer to issue a citation
only if the officer has stopped the vehicle for some other reason.
Increasing the safety belt use rate is a valuable measure for
protecting children and is the most effective way of cutting the
highway death toll. Adults who do not buckle up also do not buckle up
their children. A study of crash data by Ford Motor Company found that
when the driver is wearing a safety belt, 94 percent of the children in
the vehicle are buckled. However, when adults are not wearing a safety
belt, the portion of children restrained is only 30 percent. A national
survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found
similar results.
Seatbelts are an important part of the safety equipment that is in
every vehicle on our nation's roads. And I wish to acknowledge your
commitment and efforts, Madam Chairman, to increase seat belt usage in
your State. At nearly 83 percent seat belt usage, Washington has one of
the highest rates in the country. But as you realize, Madam Chairman,
we cannot be satisfied until each driver and passenger buckles up.
Primary enforcement of seat belt usage is one of the most effective
ways to increase seat belt usage in a State. Just as it is illegal to
drive without headlights during darkness, so also should the States
require that seatbelts be used by all occupants of all motor vehicles.
Another issue that has been of concern to the Board for many years
is the dangers of drinking and driving. Although public attitudes
toward drinking and driving have changed significantly since the early
1990s, we recently saw a rise in the number of alcohol-involved
fatalities. Hard-core drinking drivers, those drivers who repeatedly
drink and drive and those who drive with high amounts of alcohol, over
0.15 percent blood alcohol concentration in their systems, cause a
substantial number of the alcohol-related fatalities.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
from 1983 through 1998, at least 137,338 people died in crashes that
involved hard core drinking drivers. NHTSA's data also indicate that
99,812 people were injured in fatal crashes involving hard core
drinking drivers during that same period.
In 2000, the Safety Board issued a report regarding actions to
reduce fatalities, injuries, and crashes involving the hard core
drinking driver. The report outlined a model program that included
sobriety checkpoints, administrative revocation of driver's licenses,
adoption of an aggravated DWI offense, use of vehicle sanctions,
alternatives to jail and use of jail/treatment combinations and
recommended that the States establish such a program. The Board also
recommended that the Department of Transportation evaluate
modifications to the provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century so that it can be more effective in assisting the
States to reduce the hard core drinking driver problems.
We believe the adoption of our recommendations will go a long way
to reducing the incidence of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and
fatalities caused by hardcore drinking drivers. School bus
transportation is the safest means to transport students to and from
school. In a special NTSB investigation report on the use of 15-
passenger vans for school transportation issued in June 1999, it was
determined that State laws regarding student transportation do not
provide uniform safety, and we expressed concern at the trend toward
using nonconforming vehicles rather than school buses in pupil
transportation. A nonconforming bus, such as a 15-passenger van, is a
vehicle used for student transportation that meets the Federal
definition of a bus but not the Federal occupant crash protection
standards of school buses. This type of vehicle is frequently used to
transport college sport teams, commuters, and church groups. When
States allow children to be transported in vehicles not meeting Federal
school bus construction standards, they undermine the Federal
Government's intent of protecting school children. This trend is
potentially serious because it puts children at greater risk of fatal
or serious injury in the event of an accident.
As a result of the Board's special investigation, the NTSB
recommended to the States that all vehicles carrying more than 10
passengers and transporting children to and from school and school-
related activities meet the school bus structural standards or the
equivalent. We are encouraged that many of the States have responded
favorably to our recommendation.
In April 2001, NHTSA concluded that 15-passenger vans are more
likely to roll over when fully loaded with occupants than when lightly
loaded. NHTSA issued an advisory warning to users of 15-passenger vans
urging that experienced drivers operate the vans and that occupants use
restraint systems to improve occupant protection.
Through on-going investigations, we have also become concerned that
large vans have a propensity to roll over. Therefore, the NTSB is,
therefore, conducting a safety study to determine other vehicle,
driver, or highway characteristics related to large van accidents and
the likelihood of rollover.
Madam Chairman, before closing I would like to discuss an issue
that is the subject of recent Safety Board recommendations, commercial
truck and bus drivers who do not have proper medical certification to
operate their vehicles.
Medical certification, which qualifies an individual as being fit
to drive a commercial vehicle, became a Federal requirement under the
Motor Carrier Act of 1935. The qualifications have been modified and
expanded three times since then, with the most recent major
modification occurring in 1970.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has medical
oversight over approximately 400,000 interstate carriers and 9 million
commercial drivers. FMCSA oversight of the biennial medical
certification process is accomplished almost exclusively by three full-
time individuals. State oversight of the medical certification process
for interstate drivers is not mandated by Federal regulations, and the
decision to certify a driver as fit to drive typically rests with the
individual examiner performing the physical examination on the driver.
On May 9, 1999, in New Orleans, Louisiana, a motorcoach accident
killed 22 passengers. Despite suffering from potentially incapacitating
medical conditions, the driver involved in the accident was able to
obtain a medical certificate by falsifying and omitting crucial health
history information from the examination form. The examiner was able to
determine that the driver had heart disease, and possibly kidney
disease, but she believed that the Federal regulations did not preclude
the driver from obtaining a medical certificate.
Serious flaws exist in the medical certification process for
commercial drivers. The ease in which the current medical certification
procedures can be bypassed virtually assures that some unfit drivers
will find their way behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle,
endangering themselves and the motoring public. As a result of the
Board's investigation of the New Orleans accident, the Safety Board
recommended that the FMCSA and the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators develop a comprehensive medical certification
program for both interstate and intrastate truck drivers.
Implementation of these recommendations can help to make our highways
safer.
Madam Chairman, that completes my testimony and I will be happy to
respond to questions.
Senator Murray. Ms. Millie Webb, President of MADD.
STATEMENT OF MILLIE I. WEBB, PRESIDENT, MOTHERS AGAINST
DRUNK DRIVING
Mrs. Webb. Good morning, Madam Chair and Honorable Senator.
MADD is a grassroots, non-profit organization with more
than 600 chapters nationwide. Our mission is to stop drunk
driving, support the victims of this violent crime, and to
prevent underage drinking.
I am honored to be here today to testify in such good
company. Dr. Runge and Chairman Blakey and Superintendent
McMahon are three of the nation's top safety leaders.
I also want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the members of
this subcommittee for your leadership in the passage of a
lifesaving national .08 blood alcohol concentration standard.
We are looking forward to working with the subcommittee.
But last year, the nation experienced the largest
percentage increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths on
record. In 2000, an alarming 16,653 people were killed in
traffic crashes involving alcohol, representing 40 percent of
the 41,821 people killed in all traffic crashes. Each of these
deaths, the deaths of our precious loved ones, was 100 percent
preventable.
And as a result of this unprecedented increase in alcohol-
related traffic fatalities, MADD held an impaired driving
summit in January. Many of the country's safety experts came
together to discuss what could be done in the short-term and
long-term to save lives and prevent injuries.
Formal recommendations from the summit will be released in
the spring, but I can tell you that life-saving legislation,
aggressive enforcement, effective prosecution and significant
funding will be among the top recommendations.
As someone whose life was forever changed because of
another's careless decision to get behind the wheel after
drinking, I would like to briefly share my story as a way to
define the need for appropriate and aggressive funding for
traffic safety programs.
On August the 14, 1971, Roy and I were returning home from
Nashville in our car with our 19-month-old nephew, Mitch, and
our 4-year-old daughter, Lori. At the time I was 7 months
pregnant, but suddenly and tragically, our lives were forever
changed.
A man with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 rear-ended
our car causing it to burst into flames. My family was
catapulted into the roadway. Roy with his bare hands
extinguished the flames that engulfed Lori and little Mitch and
myself.
With a broken neck and burns that covered over 73 percent
of my body, doctors and nurses worked very hard to save me and
the life of my then-unborn daughter, Kara. Our condition was so
precarious that it would be weeks before Roy and I were told
that little Mitch died 6 hours after the crash, and that our
beautiful daughter Lori suffered for 2 weeks before dying from
her burns that covered 75 percent of her body.
Although born prematurely and legally blind as a result of
the crash, Kara overcame her limited sight through her
determination not to be imprisoned by negativity or darkness.
While her sight may be weak, her insight has been great.
NHTSA's traffic safety budget is woefully inadequate. Each
year traffic crashes cause the loss of over--over 40,000 lives
and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries. The resulting
damage to America's economy is over $150 billion each and every
year.
In spite of these appalling human and economic losses,
NHTSA's annual budget is only $400 million. Currently, NHTSA's
overall budget does not reflect the importance of a drunk
driving problem.
Effective solutions to America's drunk driving problem
require effective resources. The fiscal year 2003 requested
budget reflects a nearly $3 million decrease for the impaired
driving division from the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget.
Although alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of all traffic
deaths, only 26 percent of all funding available to the States
through T21 is spent on alcohol driving--alcohol-impaired
driving countermeasures. Too often, highway safety funding made
available to the States is used for highway construction
projects or other projects that do not advance our mutual goals
to save lives and prevent injuries.
Most significantly, the purpose of section 402 within T21
is to support State highway safety programs designed to reduce
traffic crashes and resulting death and injuries, but only 17
percent of the section 402 funds go to alcohol impaired driving
countermeasures.
To combat this public health problem, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving calls for the establishment of a dedicated national
traffic safety fund to provide substantially increased
resources for priority traffic safety programs.
We know what will work to save lives and prevent injuries
on our highways. One of the most effective ways to fight drunk
driving is to conduct frequent, highly visible, highly
publicized sobriety checkpoints across the country. In
Tennessee and New York, these enforcement efforts have
significantly reduced drunk driving. Checkpoint Tennessee was a
weekly sobriety checkpoint program piloted by NHTSA that
resulted in a 20 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatal
crashes. MADD would like to request that this Subcommittee
dedicate resources to sobriety checkpoint programs.
I want to thank the subcommittee for allocating funds in
the fiscal year 2002 budget to conduct paid advertising in
conjunction with seat belt enforcement mobilization.
A person's best defense against a drunk driver is his or
her seat belt. Additionally, two of every three children killed
in alcohol-related traffic crashes died while riding as a
passenger in vehicles driven by intoxicated adult drivers. Most
of these children were not properly restrained. Clearly,
occupant protection plays an important role in the fight
against drunk driving.
MADD would like to request that the subcommittee consider
allocating money to conduct additional impaired driving
enforcement mobilizations. In October 2000, Congress passed .08
BAC as the national standard for impaired driving as part of a
transportation appropriations bill, and I want to thank you
once more for that action.
Prior to the passage of this law, approximately one State
per year was adopting the .08 standard. Since 2001, 10 States
have enacted this law. And last week, South Dakota passed a .08
BAC, and this measure is pending in several other States.
MADD will fight any attempt to eliminate or weaken the .08
standard. Nationally, 58 percent of the alcohol-related traffic
fatalities in 2000 involved drivers with a BAC of .15 percent
and above.
About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of
driving while intoxicated are repeat offenders. To address
high-risk offenders, MADD advocates mandatory sentencing,
strict licensing, and vehicle sanctions in efforts to address
substance abuse. We will work to incorporate elements from our
higher risk driver program into the T21 reauthorization.
In 1998, as part of T21, a new Federal program was
established to encourage State adoption of open container laws.
Currently 34 States and the District of Columbia have complied
with the terms of this law.
However, as written, the law allows for funding to be
redirected to either highway safety or hazard elimination. And
this ability to direct money into hazard elimination weakens
the value of the Federal law. The--this loophole needs to be
corrected. Otherwise, many States are simply engaging in a
shell game.
In conclusion, I hope my statements today offer some
insight into MADD's policy positions and how we can accomplish
our mutual goals to save lives and prevent injuries.
With this subcommittee's leadership and the active
participation of our Federal, State, local and private sector
partners, MADD will continue our fight to reduce the number of
deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers.
I would like to commend the subcommittee for its continued
leadership by scheduling this hearing.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chair and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I would
be pleased to take questions now and respond to the answers
following the hearing.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mrs. Webb.
Mrs. Webb. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Millie I. Webb
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Millie Webb, and I am the National President
of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). MADD is a non-profit grass
roots organization with more than 600 chapters nationwide. Our mission
is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and
prevent underage drinking.
I am honored to be here today testifying in such good company. Dr.
Runge, Chairman Blakey, and Superintendent McMahon are among the
Nation's top safety leaders but perhaps more importantly, they are
three of the Nation's top safety heroes.
I also want to thank you, Madam Chair and the Members of the
Subcommittee, for your leadership in the passage of the lifesaving
national .08 percent blood alcohol concentration standard. We are
looking forward to working with this Subcommittee and with Congress to
achieve a fiscal year 2003 transportation appropriation that properly
addresses traffic safety and to shape proposals for the reauthorization
of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Last year the Nation experienced the largest percentage increase in
alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. In 2000, an alarming 16,653
people were killed in traffic crashes involving alcohol, representing
40 percent of the 41,821 people killed in all traffic crashes. Each of
these deaths--the deaths of our precious loved ones--was 100 percent
preventable.
As a result of this unprecedented increase in alcohol-related
traffic fatalities, MADD held an Impaired Driving Summit in January.
Many of the country's traffic safety experts came together at the
Summit to discuss what could be done in the short-term and long-term to
save lives and prevent injuries. Formal recommendations from the Summit
will be released in the spring, but I can tell you that lifesaving
legislation, aggressive enforcement, effective prosecution, and
significant funding will be among the top recommendations.
We believe the Summit was an important step forward in the fight
against drunk driving. The Nation needs to reenergize and refocus on
the fight to stop drunk driving. It's time to get MADD all over again.
The traffic safety field has set the goal of no more than 11,000
alcohol-related traffic deaths by 2005. However, in order to reach the
goal, we will need more money to be spent on effective programs and a
renewed passion for making progress in this area. We need the public's
energy and the political will to shake us out of a deadly plateau and
back on the road to progress. Ultimately, one death is too many and
MADD would like to reach a goal of zero alcohol-related traffic
fatalities.
OVERVIEW
As someone whose life was forever altered because of someone's
careless decision to get behind the wheel after drinking, I would like
to briefly share my story as a way to define the need for appropriate
and aggressive funding for traffic safety programs.
On August 14, 1971, my husband, Roy, and I were returning home from
Nashville. In our car were our 19-month-old nephew, Mitchell, and our
4-year-old daughter, Lori. At the time, I was also 7 months pregnant
with our second child. Suddenly and tragically our lives were forever
changed. A man with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent rear-
ended our car, causing it to burst into flames. My family was
catapulted onto the roadway. Roy, with his bare hands, extinguished the
flames that engulfed myself, Lori, and Mitchell.
With a broken neck and burns that covered 73 percent of my body,
doctors and nurses worked to save me and the life of my then unborn
daughter, Kara. Our condition was so precarious that it would be weeks
before Roy and I were told little Mitchell died 6 hours after the crash
and that our beautiful daughter, Lori, had suffered two weeks before
dying from burns covering 75 percent of her body.
Despite the loss of my daughter, Lori, and my nephew, Mitchell, my
family received a blessing through the birth of my baby Kara. Although
born prematurely and legally blind as a result of the crash, Kara has
overcome her limited sight through her determination not to be
imprisoned by negativity or darkness. While her sight maybe weak, her
insight is great.
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUNDING
When our crash occurred, drunk driving laws and public perception
were much different than they are today. Since 1982, more than 200,000
lives have been saved through the passage of new laws, strict
enforcement and prosecution and increased awareness. But we have not
won the war and there is much more work to be done in the fight against
drunk driving. Complacency is our biggest enemy.
Madam Chair, as you consider your funding priorities, I would like
to provide you and your colleagues with an overview of MADD's
transportation appropriation and TEA-21 reauthorization priorities.
NHTSA's traffic safety budget is woefully inadequate. Each year,
traffic crashes cause the loss of over 40,000 lives and hundreds of
thousands of serious injuries. The resulting damage to America's
economy is over $150 billion each and every year. In spite of these
appalling human and economic losses, NHTSA's annual budget is only $400
million.
Currently, NHTSA's overall budget does not reflect the importance
of the drunk driving problem. Effective solutions to America's drunk
driving problem require effective resources. The fiscal year 2003
requested budget reflects a nearly $3 million decrease for the Impaired
Driving Division from the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. With drunk
driving deaths on the rise, MADD cannot understand how NHTSA's fiscal
year 2003 Impaired Driving Division would be able to reach its goals to
reduce drunk driving deaths and injuries with even fewer resources.
Although alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of all traffic deaths,
only 26 percent of all funding available to the States through TEA-21
is spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. Too often highway
safety funding made available to the States is used for highway
construction projects or other programs that do not advance our mutual
goals to save lives and prevent injuries. Most significantly, the
purpose of Section 402 within TEA-21 is to support State highway safety
programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting death and
injuries, but only 17 percent of the Section 402 funds go to alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures.
Drunk driving is a national epidemic that demands significantly
more resources than are currently being allocated. To combat this
public health problem, Mothers Against Drunk Driving calls for the
establishment of a dedicated National Traffic Safety Fund to provide
substantially increased resources for priority traffic safety programs.
The most effective way to reduce motor vehicle crash fatalities and
injuries and the costs with which they are associated is through
highway safety programs that focus on the prevention of impaired
driving, and increased safety belt and child restraint use.
It has been estimated that for every dollar spent on effective
highway safety programs, about $30 is saved by society in the reduced
costs of crashes. MADD recommends earmarked revenues of at least $1
billion annually for the National Traffic Safety Fund, a sum that is
still less than 1 percent of what this public health problem costs
Americans each year. It is time to accelerate the Federal government's
effort to reduce the devastating and costly consequences of motor
vehicle crashes.
The traffic safety and public health community knows what will work
to save lives and prevent injuries on our highways. But, we need more
funding for programs that have been proven to work. One of the most
effective ways to fight drunk driving is to conduct frequent, highly
visible, highly publicized sobriety checkpoints across the country. In
Tennessee and New York, these enforcement efforts have significantly
reduced drunk driving. ``Checkpoint Tennessee'' was a weekly sobriety
checkpoint program piloted by NHTSA that resulted in a 20 percent
reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes extending at least 21 months
after the conclusion of the program. The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) recently reviewed six different studies and concluded that
sobriety checkpoints were highly effective in reducing alcohol-related
traffic fatalities and injuries. However, numerous researchers conclude
that sobriety checkpoints are not being used as widely as needed due in
large part to a lack of resources. MADD would like to request that the
Subcommittee dedicate resources to sobriety checkpoint programs.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for allocating funds in the fiscal
year 2002 budget to conduct paid advertising in conjunction with seat
belt enforcement mobilizations. A person's best defense against a drunk
driver is his or her seatbelt. Additionally, a recent Centers for
Disease Control study found that two of every three children who die in
alcohol-related traffic crashes died while riding as passengers in
vehicles driven by intoxicated adult drivers. Clearly occupant
protection plays an important role in the fight against drunk driving.
MADD would like to request that the Subcommittee consider
allocating money to conduct additional enforcement efforts in
conjunction with the national ``You Drink & Drive. You Lose.'' impaired
driving enforcement mobilizations. Again, highly visible enforcement
efforts have proven to save lives and prevent injuries and MADD urges
that these types of efforts be given top priority in allocating highway
safety funding.
.08 PERCENT BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION (BAC)
In October 2000, Congress passed .08 BAC as the national standard
for impaired driving as part of the Transportation Appropriations Bill,
and I want to thank you once more for that action. States that don't
adopt .08 BAC laws by 2004 would have 2 percent of certain highway
construction funds withheld, with the penalty increasing to 8 percent
by 2007.
Prior to the passage of this law, approximately one State per year
was adopting the .08 standard. Since 2001, 10 States have enacted this
standard. MADD will fight any attempt to eliminate or weaken the .08
standard.
REPEAT/HIGH RISK OFFENDERS
Nationally, 58 percent of the alcohol-related traffic fatalities in
2000 involved drivers with a BAC of .15 percent and above. About one-
third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated
are repeat offenders. Both types of drivers represent a special danger
on our roads.
This is why MADD developed the ``Higher-Risk Driver Program,''
aimed at protecting the public from these dangerous drivers while at
the same time addressing their alcohol abuse problem. To address high-
risk offenders, MADD advocates mandatory sentencing, strict licensing
and vehicle sanctions, and efforts to address substance abuse. We will
work to incorporate elements from our Higher-Risk Driver Program in to
the TEA-21 reauthorization.
States need to focus on comprehensive systems of laws that will
address this hard-to-reach population, and all too often this
legislation is only enacted on a piecemeal basis. These offenders must
receive meaningful license restrictions, effective vehicle sanctions,
and adequate treatment for alcohol problems.
MADD will also be working for better data systems. Every State
should have an adequate DUI tracking system to record the outcome of
each DUI arrest so that it will be possible to identify plea bargains,
pretrial diversions, or other operational problems. Such tracking
systems would be very helpful in identifying repeat offenders. In too
many States, repeat offenders are classified incorrectly as first-time
offenders. It is imperative that State data systems are improved and
that a better system for States to share this data be put into place.
UNDERAGE DRINKING
Young drivers make up 6.9 percent of the total driving population,
but constitute 13 percent of the alcohol-involved drivers in fatal
crashes despite the fact that alcohol is an illegal product for those
under 21. MADD supports Federal efforts to fund programs that promote
greater consistency in the enforcement, prosecution and adjudication of
youthful offenders.
Research published in the American Journal of Public Health shows
that the earlier a person begins drinking, the more likely they are to
suffer from alcohol-related problems later in life including alcohol
dependency and drunk driving. Therefore, underage drinking prevention
is a key part of preventing future drunk driving tragedies.
OPEN CONTAINER
In 1998, as part of TEA-21, a new Federal program was established
to encourage State adoption of open container laws. To avoid the
transfer of funds, States must certify that their open container law
complies with certain requirements, that the law is in effect, and that
it is being enforced.
Currently, 34 States and the District of Columbia have complied
with the terms of this law. However, as written the law allows for
funding to be redirected to either highway safety or Hazard
Elimination, and this ability to direct money into Hazard Elimination
weakens the value of the Federal law.
While the Hazard Elimination program is important, open container
is an anti-drunk driving countermeasure, and if States fail to enact
the law the redirected money should be spent on highway safety programs
that reduce drunk driving deaths and injuries.
Some States have refused to enact open container legislation and
have simply transferred funds into their Hazard Elimination programs.
This loophole needs to be corrected, otherwise many States are simply
engaging in a ``shell game.''
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I hope my statements today offer some insight into
MADD's policy positions and how we can accomplish our mutual goal to
save lives and prevent injuries. It is critical that this
transportation budget provide adequate and predictable funding for
priority traffic safety programs.
With this Subcommittee's leadership, and the active participation
of our Federal, State, local and private sector partners, MADD will
continue our fight to reduce the number of deaths and fatalities caused
by drunk drivers. I would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
continued leadership by scheduling this hearing.
Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I would be pleased to
take questions now, and to respond to written questions following the
hearing.
Senator Murray. Superintendent James McMahon, New York
State Police, General Chair, Division of State and Provincial
Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police.
STATEMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT JAMES W. McMAHON, NEW YORK
STATE POLICE, GENERAL CHAIR, DIVISION OF
STATE AND PROVINCIAL POLICE, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
Mr. McMahon. Madam Chairwoman, it is a pleasure to be
here--and Senator Campbell--representing the New York State
Police as a career trooper, and the International Association
of Chiefs of Police today in what I think is a very important
matter you are discussing.
I have submitted written comments. Many of the comments
that I submitted, you summarized in your opening statement.
I am keenly aware of the tragedies of 9/11, having had 500
troopers at the direction of Governor Patakia around the Trade
Center working in different areas and which they did for about
5 months down there. Certainly, we saw what the hatred and the
murderous acts that people are willing to do has changed our
way of life, has certainly changed our focus in law enforcement
in many ways.
We now have to balance the potential of that hatred along
with our traditional duties of protecting our communities from
drugs and violent crime and keeping our highways safer.
Well, we are proud of what we have done in New York State
in all those areas and especially in the highway traffic safety
area. In the year 2000, our last reportable statistics, we had
the lowest fatality rate in New York's history at 1.15 per 100
million miles driven.
And we had the second lowest percent of alcohol-related
fatalities in the United States only exceeded by the State of
Utah. We are very proud of that also.
Having said that, there were still 1,444 people killed. You
mentioned the over 40,000 in the United States. As a career
trooper for 35 years, I can tell you that many of those, if not
the majority, are needless and preventable.
We look at it from three factors, two causatives as the
leading cause. One is alcohol, which everybody has talked
about, impairment, today. You mentioned it. I concur with you.
There is an apathy setting in, an apathy in the media in
getting our message out, an apathy in the public. We had some
great advances. Those are stalled right now.
The area of teenage, underage drinking is a serious problem
nationwide and in New York. When you look at the Califano
report yesterday, it certainly emphasizes what is going on with
our young people there. We do not really have the answer for
that at this point.
The second causative factor is speed. We are losing that
battle, and have been losing that battle. I think there is
something in the Constitution that says it is an inalienable
right for Americans to speed. Nobody is addressing that
sufficiently. We need research. We see a speed creep that has
continued. It is going up.
Our tickets from our troopers are going up about one mile
an hour a year. On the interstates the fatality rates maybe are
not showing that as much on interstates, but I think we need
research to show what the fatality rates are in our rural two-
lane highways, because people continue to increase over the 55
mile-an-hour speed limit when they go on the rural roads, like
they do on the interstates. And those roads are not built for
that.
The third area is the number one preventive area, which we
have heard today and that has to do with seat belts. There is
no easier way, no matter what the causative factor is, to
prevent a fatal accident.
While we continually talk about fatalities, we do not talk
about those debilitating injuries enough: People confined to
wheelchairs for the rest of their lives; people confined to
hospitals with head injuries for the rest of their lives. The
majority of those are because they did not buckle up, or they
did not have their child in a seat belt.
So that is an area, I think, that needs tremendous focus.
We have had great luck with that in New York State and we have
had it because of good laws. We have had it from teamwork, and
I am joined by colleagues here that have been part of that
team. And we have had it because of enhanced Federal funding in
the area.
I would like to quickly walk through our program and
demonstrate the results, because I think it can be used
successfully in many other areas. We had the first primary seat
belt law in the country. It was enacted in 1984, passed in
1985.
At that time, there was 12 percent compliance in seat belt
use. The first year of that law, primary law, we went up to 50
percent, which is like any law, most Americans are law-abiding.
From 1986 through the early 1990s, we went up to about 70
percent. And at that point, pretty much nationally and in New
York State, the emphasis was on education and awareness, as
people were becoming aware of seat belts and car seats at that
time, not as much on enforcement.
Through the mid-1990s, we became stagnant, pegged at around
between 70 and 74 percent in the compliance rate. I was noting
accidents, especially accidents with kids, rollover collisions,
where people would be ejected and killed when we knew it did
not have to happen if they had a seat belt on.
So we started to look at what we could do. We met with
Chuck Hurley and Janet Dewey, our partners, and Morrie Hannigan
at National Safety Council and our partners at NHTSA. We saw
several areas in the country where strict enforcement had
worked; zero tolerance, strict enforcement. And we went about
creating a program in New York State with partners involved in
it from both law enforcement and otherwise to try to make a
difference.
We started our Buckle Up New York program. We set a goal.
We moved from 74 to 85 percent compliance by the end of the
year 2000.
We asked our partners at NHTSA if they could tell us how
many lives they thought we could save. They said 148. They also
said it would be $400 million saved in insurance costs and
medical benefit--medical costs, if we did that.
We looked at the cultural sensitivity factor at the same
time. We had Meharry Medical College study which you mentioned
today, the over-representation of African-Americans, Native-
Americans. The Meharry College medical study said exactly what
you were saying.
We looked at a study in Erie County, New York at the Erie
County Medical Center that replicated what the Meharry Medical
College study said of the over-representation of young African-
Americans in unbelted accidents.
And with that and the financial assistance, and the
assistance of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, we conducted a diversity forum, before we
kicked our campaign off in Albany, New York. And we brought
representatives in from throughout New York State, Urban
League, NAACP, ACLU, different other minority groups to our
academy, faith-based groups.
We showed them the Meharry study, indicated what we wanted
to do, showed them the over representation of their youngsters
being killed in these accidents, and got tremendous support
from them in the campaign.
As we opened the campaign in May of 1999, we indicated we
were going to have three 10-day waves, zero tolerance waves,
but we knew if we were going to make a mark, we had to have the
support of local law enforcement. In New York State, we are 5.9
percent of the police staffing levels. We do 41 percent of all
tickets, enforcement. We do 23 percent of all DWI. And we were
doing over 40 percent of all seat belt enforcement at that
time.
If we were going to make our mark, we had to get the help
of local law enforcement. In many instances, they do not
consider traffic safety a primary function. To do that, we
needed Federal funding sources, which was provided by NHTSA
through our governor's rep, with innovative grant process that
we encouraged local law enforcement to get participation, and
ended up with over 400 agencies participating in our waves.
Over seven waves now, starting in May of 1999, we wrote
over 300,000 tickets--unfortunately, 9,600 of them for car
seats. In today's times, we think that is unbelievable. But our
compliance rate went from 74 percent to 88 percent.
Two thousand's figures showed that there were 141 fewer
deaths in New York State, so we almost made the 148. And you
can figure how much money was saved then. We could not have
done that without the Federal assistance and funding levels we
had, without our partners in doing it.
The last area we have heard about is child's seats. Again,
from a cultural sensitivity standpoint, I have no trouble
giving anyone a ticket that does not put their child in a seat.
I do, if they do not have the economic wherewithal to get a
child seat. So part of our program has been outreach to the
minority communities especially, or the poor communities in New
York State, and having car seat clinics in those locations.
And if they do not have the financial resources for a car
seat, we are providing it and, again, that is from Federal
funding through the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee in New
York State.
So I think that strategy that saved 141 lives in 18 months
can be applied to the alcohol-related area. It could be applied
to any of the areas. And if it was done, good laws, primary
laws, teamwork, Federal funding, working closely together, we
could have an impact if we attack those causative factors of
alcohol, speed and the preventative factor of seat belts.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairwoman, it is a pleasure for me to be before your
committee today.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James W. McMahon
Good morning Senator Murray. I am James W. McMahon, Superintendent
of the New York State Police. I would like to thank you and the entire
Subcommittee on Transportation for the opportunity to discuss with you
a topic which I consider of the utmost importance in my capacity as
both the Superintendent of the New York State Police, and as General
Chair of the State and Provincial Division of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Issues of highway safety have profound
impacts on communities in New York State and across this country. Our
roads tie those communities together, move our commerce and thereby
unite us. Unfortunately, our roads and highways also kill more than
40,000 mothers, fathers and children each year, and the majority of
those deaths are needless and preventable.
Highway safety was one of the founding missions of the New York
State Police in 1917, and the importance of that mission has never been
greater. The New York State Police is not a highway patrol, as such. It
is a full service police agency, providing general enforcement and
police services to all of New York's rural communities, as well as
support services to the State's urban police forces, including a
criminal detective force of 980 members. But there is no mission more
important, even today, than the safety of our roads and highways,
because there is no issue which impacts the lives of the average
citizen more often and more dramatically.
We are proud of our highway safety record in New York State. The
year 2000 (the last year for which complete statistics are available)
was our safest in history, dating back to the early 1920s. Our highway
fatality rate of 1.15 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel,
was among the lowest nationally, and the percentage of those deaths
which were alcohol related was second lowest in the nation. Having said
that up front, I can attest to you that those life-saving records could
not have been achieved without strict and targeted enforcement, which
was enhanced by federal funding to the States through the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The same is true of
other States with low fatality rates.
New York's highway safety enforcement strategy is data driven and
results oriented. We apply significant resources to target three main
areas: excessive speed, impaired driving and failure to wear safety
restraints. As I'm sure is the case in other States, these persistent
threats are responsible for the majority of highway tragedies. The
first two, alcohol or drug impairment and speeding, are causative
factors. The third, the use of safety restraints, is the number one
factor in preventing deaths or serious injuries, regardless of
causation.
Let me begin by talking about the last factor first, because it is
the easiest way to improve safety, and it affects the human outcome in
all crashes. To do so, I will provide some history and detail of our
successful Buckle Up New York Campaign, and the impact this program has
had on the safety of all New Yorkers.
New York State was the first State in the nation to enact a
mandatory safety belt law in 1984. The law became effective January 1,
1985. It was a primary law from the start, enabling police to stop
violators solely for not wearing a safety belt. Prior to the law taking
effect, only 12 percent of motorists wore seat belts, and in 1984,
1,012 unrestrained occupants were killed on New York's highways. The
year the mandatory seat belt law took effect, seat belt use jumped to
50 percent and the number unrestrained deaths dropped to 644. New
York's mandatory seat belt law saved 368 lives that year alone.
Over the next 5 years, compliance with the new law rose steadily to
about 70 percent. As with the rest of the nation, these increases in
seat belt use were largely the result of programs at the federal and
State levels, which placed their main emphasis on education and
awareness. But these campaigns reached a level of diminishing returns
in New York State by the mid-1990s, and the steady increases in belt
use stagnated at 70-75 percent between 1994-1998. At the same time, we
in the State Police began to notice a recurrence of crashes where lives
were needlessly lost because the occupants were unrestrained, and we
began discussions about how to increase the use of safety restraints.
Shortly thereafter, I had discussions with NHTSA administrators and
Mr. Chuck Hurley and Ms. Janet Dewey of the National Safety Council's
Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign, about developing a strategy to
get the remaining 25 percent of New York motorists buckled up. We
studied strategies employed elsewhere in this country and abroad, and
determined that the only strategies which were effective anywhere in
the world, were those which employed a zero-tolerance enforcement
approach. We researched the New York State crash data by location, age
and gender to learn about specific target groups. Lastly, we researched
the field of occupant safety regarding these target groups, including a
landmark literature review by the Meharry Medical College, which
identified a significantly at-risk population of young African-American
males. Subsequently, we established a goal of 85 percent safety belt
use by the end of the year 2000, and developed a strategy of highly
visible zero-tolerance enforcement. We presented the plan to NHTSA and
asked their experts to estimate the safety impacts of increasing belt
use from 74 percent to 85 percent in 18 months. NHTSA estimated that if
successful, 148 lives and $400 million in insurance and medical costs
could be saved. With this objective in mind, the Buckle Up New York
Campaign was instituted in May 1999.
We in the State Police knew from the start that we could not
achieve this objective alone. As is similar in other States, New York
State Troopers accounted for 47 percent of all occupant restraint
enforcement, 55 percent of all speed enforcement, 23 percent of all
impaired driving enforcement and 41 percent of total traffic
enforcement in the State, yet comprise just 5.9 percent of police
manpower. Despite this enforcement presence, an even more extensive law
enforcement commitment would be necessary to change public behavior.
The participation and cooperation of local and county law enforcement
would be critical.
In some cases, local law enforcement agencies did not, consider
traffic enforcement a primary mission. In order to involve them, we
needed a complete package. We had an attainable goal. We developed a
workable strategy, which involved 3 annual enforcement waves, which
supplement year-round enforcement efforts. These waves would be 10 days
long and preceded by 10 days of heightened media. But we knew the local
agencies would not, and in most cases, could not participate without
additional funding for the additional enforcement. For this we needed
the assistance of NHTSA, through the offices of our Governor's Traffic
Safety Committee.
When Governor George E. Pataki, nominated me as Superintendent of
State Police, he provided me a mandate to continue to improve the
safety of New York's highways and communities by working in cooperation
with local authorities. That is a mandate I take very seriously. But
while the governor had made great investments in improving the
capability of the New York State Police to safeguard the highways,
including 100 additional troopers, new electronic breath test
instruments and state-of-the-art speed enforcement instruments, I knew
that in this case fulfillment of that mandate meant improving the
capability of other agencies. Only by ensuring funding for the county
and local agencies, could we improve the safety of our roads and
highways statewide.
NHTSA and the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee responded in
dramatic fashion, providing funding to any agency willing to join the
enforcement effort. A streamlined funding application procedure was
implemented through a State Police law enforcement liaison assigned for
this purpose. Letters were sent to each police chief and sheriff, and
each was visited personally to enlist his or her support. In addition,
an extensive child passenger safety program was implemented in
partnership with other State agencies, local law enforcement and other
safety practitioners, to improve the safety of our smallest and most
vulnerable vehicle occupants. With the support of available federal
funding, a comprehensive Buckle Up New York Campaign began to take
shape.
In order to build greater support in minority communities, we
partnered with NHTSA to host a diversity forum at the New York State
Police Academy. In attendance were representatives from the NAACP,
ACLU, Local Urban Leagues, educators, and leaders of faith-based
communities, some of whom could not have attended without the financial
assistance provided by NHTSA. Attendees were informed of the findings
of our research and asked to be part of the solution. The result was
great community support for our enforcement efforts and relationships
which continue to this day.
The second phase of this outreach involved improving the capability
of the economically disadvantaged to safeguard their children. While I
consider failure to protect child passengers gross neglect and strict
enforcement child seat laws is warranted, it is also necessary to
ensure that those without the financial means to protect their
children, are provided with the means to do so. Once again, we turned
to our partners at the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee and NHTSA
for federal funding, and today a statewide mechanism is in place to
ensure that no care-giver will be denied access to child restraints due
to their economic status. This has significantly improved our
relationships in minority communities.
Since may 1999, seven Buckle up New York enforcement waves have
been conducted, resulting in the issuance of more than 300,000 tickets
for failure to wear restraints. More than 9,600 of those tickets were
for child restraint violations. The statewide average safety restraint
use rate has been measured as high as 88.3 percent, a significant
increase from the 74 percent recorded prior to the first wave. Most
importantly, 141 lives were saved between 1999 and 2000, nearly
reaching NHTSAs estimate of 148.
Throughout the campaign, the involvement of local and county level
enforcement grew, which contributed significantly to the outcome.
During the first wave, local and county enforcement accounted for about
a third of the enforcement effort, but by the end of the seventh wave,
accounted for 42 percent. More than any other component, this
involvement was critical to the successful and life-saving outcome of
the program, and could this not have occurred without significant
federal funding.
Please allow me to summarize the main points of our recent
experience in increasing safety restraint use in New York State,
because I believe the effective strategies used in the Buckle Up New
York Campaign, with the support of critical and targeted funding
provided by NHTSA, can be replicated in States nationwide.
First, proper use of seat belts and child restraints is the most
effective way to prevent needless deaths and debilitating injuries,
regardless of the actual cause of any motor vehicle crash. These
tragedies exact a great cost and result in widespread suffering in
American society, and buckling up is the easiest means of prevention.
Second, enforcement works. When applied across the board by State,
county and local agencies, the potential of receiving a ticket for not
wearing a seatbelt is the impetus required to achieve rates of seat
belt use in excess of 80 percent.
And third, the additional enforcement required to significantly
raise seat belt use and thereby save lives and prevent injuries, cannot
be accomplished without federal funding. This is especially true in
light of recent demands for enhanced security efforts, and their fiscal
implications on State and local budgets. Without the federal
assistance, lives will continue to be needlessly lost on our highways.
While we have not yet solved the problem of unrestrained occupants
in New York State, I believe we have found the formula to address it.
We witnessed nearly a 10 percent reduction in fatalities in New York
State since implementing Buckle Up New York. It is a model which we
adopted from others, and it can work elsewhere in America as well.
In the time remaining, let me turn to the other two highway safety
concerns, impaired driving and excessive speed.
There has been great progress made in reducing the incidence of
impaired driving in the U.S. in recent years, but I fear that apathy is
setting in, and today we are at risk of relinquishing some of the gains
made. In highway safety, apathy equals lives lost. The downward trend
in impaired driving deaths has leveled off, and more attention and
innovation may be necessary to prevent greater loss of life.
Impaired driving is a continual concern in New York State,
particularly where our youngest drivers are concerned. Drivers under
age 21 make up just 5 percent of the licensed drivers, but are involved
in 14 percent of fatal crashes in New York. Compounding the problems,
recent census data indicate that the number of licensed drivers under
age 21 in New York State will grow by 25 percent in the next decade.
Therefore, if nothing is done, more young lives will be lost.
We are attempting to apply the strategies employed in the Buckle Up
New York Campaign to impaired driving and underage drinking. We are
developing joint enforcement operations with county and local
enforcement agencies and the State Liquor Authority to improve
enforcement of underage consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages. In
addition, we have the benefit of a State mechanism to fund local
impaired driving countermeasures. A State law titled Special Traffic
Options Program for Driving While Intoxicated (Stop-DWI), returns fines
imposed on impaired driving violators to county level administrators to
fund additional enforcement efforts. This law, enacted in 1982, is one
of the main factors contributing to New York's success in combating
impaired driving. As in the effort to improve safety restraint use,
coordinated statewide efforts offer the greatest promise to preventing
impaired driving, and continued funding will be necessary to support
those efforts.
In the last area, speed enforcement, I dare to say that law
enforcement is currently losing the battle. Non-compliance with speed
limits is widespread in New York State and nationwide. Like no other
law, many behave as though it is their inalienable right to speed, and
unfortunately for too many, the results are tragic. In New York State,
24 percent of fatalities in 2000 were attributable to excessive speed.
Addressing the issue will take a large scale programming and additional
resources to provide new technologies and the staffing necessary to
implement them.
In closing, I would like to say what I have said to many recruit
troopers at the State Police Academy. It is hard to prevent a murder
which occurs behind closed doors, but it is relatively easy to prevent
a murder on the highway by stopping a drunk or speeding driver. So too,
it is relatively easy to prevent the needless death of an occupant who
does not buckle up or of a child who's safety is unconscionably
neglected by being left unrestrained. And although we may not remember
the faces of the people we save, we certainly do remember the faces of
those we fail to save. Both are equally real, and it is incumbent upon
us to prevent the latter.
Senator Murray, that concludes my testimony. Again, I want to thank
you and the entire committee for this great opportunity to express my
views on highway safety. I would be happy to answer any questions you
or the subcommittee may have.
Senator Murray. We do have a vote on. We have 7 minutes
left in that vote. I am going to ask one quick question and
then let Senator Campbell, and we will recess and come back.
REDUCED CORE PROGRAM REQUEST
Dr. Runge, the Administration sent up a budget request that
cuts the overall funding for NHTSA's core highway safety
programs by 26 percent. We know that 90 percent of all
transportation related fatalities occur on our nation's
highways, and that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause
of death for ages four to thirty-three.
We also know that cancer is another leading cause of death
and the National Cancer Institute's budget received an increase
of 22 percent.
Can you explain to us why the Administration, it seems,
thinks that highway safety is such a lower priority for this
Administration?
Dr. Runge. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I will hope you understand that coming into a department
that has faced extraordinary challenges in the last 4 or 5
months has dramatically changed the landscape. We do not have
authority over cancer funding or cancer resource deployment,
but we do have authority and the responsibility over
transportation.
I do believe that the priorities have shifted all over this
country and maybe most poignantly within the Department of
Transportation. As you yourself said, security somehow has
taken on new meaning. We used to say ``safety and security.'' I
think everybody now understands that security has some very
unique needs.
You will not find a fiercer advocate for highway safety
than I, as I enter future budget processes. I have a very
close-to-the-ground view of the highway safety problem.
I do not have a view from the mountaintop, or even much
less from the satellite, about the priorities of the
Administration, given the limited resources. I would only ask
you to please understand the primary predicament that the DOT
finds itself in in this particular year with respect to the
need to take a stand. DOT is an agency which needs tens of
thousands of new employees and frankly, I wonder where all the
resources, not just monetary, but all the human resources are
going to come from.
So I am sympathetic to the challenges that we face in the
Department, and thereby in the entire budget process this year.
I fully support the President's budget, and we will try our
best to work smarter and more efficiently to do the best we can
with the resources that we have.
Senator Murray. I would like to explore that a little bit
more.
We do have a vote on. I am going to recess temporarily, and
come right back, and we will continue this conversation.
Senator Murray. This committee will reconvene.
And I will turn the time over to Senator Campbell for
questions.
TRUCK AND MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Senator Campbell. Oh, thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
I have got notes all over the place, so I am going to have
to skip around a little bit here, but I wanted to just focus on
a couple of things that I know a little bit about, not much,
but a little.
One is trucks and one is motorcycles. I was particularly
interested in reading the statement by Jeffrey. And I commend
NHTSA for all the work they have done in trying to reduce
highway fatalities and highway accidents in general.
I note with interest that your statistics say that there
seems to be a decrease in automobile deaths and accidents, but
increased with motorcycles; so let me start there. I think that
one of the problems I have with a lot of just raw numbers is
they do not talk about the causal effects about who or why or
the circumstances.
And I note that it does not say in your report, Jeff, but I
saw in some other reports that the accidents with motorcycles
have gone up about 4 percent this year. But it did not say that
the numbers of riders have gone up by 10 percent for the last 3
years in a row, roughly 30 percent more now than were riding a
few years ago.
And I will tell you I am out there sometimes, so let me
tell you who they are. An awful lot of them are 45-to 60-year-
old white collar workers earning about $65,000. That is the
demographics from some of the manufacturers. And a lot of them
are too macho to take lessons.
And they are guys who Mom told when they were 16, ``You
cannot have one.'' Well, Mom is gone. And now they have plenty
of money, and they have not been on anything with two wheels
since they were 16, and it was a bicycle. And I think that is
one of the real problems of why the accidents and deaths are
going up if they are not car/motorcycle related because, as I
understand it, if they are car/motorcycle related, about two-
thirds of the causes are by the car--the automobile, not the
motorcycle.
And, you know, most States have mandatory training. If you
want to get a license in high school, you have to take a
driving training class. And I certainly support that, but they
do not have that with motorcycles.
So too many times, I think, people learn just by hook or
crook or by somebody or something. There is no real system by
which they learn a safe method of riding.
We do have rider training, but it is strictly voluntary.
They do not have to take that. And I am thinking that we ought
to be doing more along that line.
The other thing too is that I think the manufacturers are
trying to make some more efficient and better safety
mechanisms. I remember a few years ago, I read a lawsuit filed
against one manufacturer in which a man lost his leg in an
accident, and he won that lawsuit, by the way.
But motorcycles do not have the same kind of cruise
controls cars do, as you probably know. Most of them are set by
a thumb screw, or they are set some way, but you override them
by hand. But if you are too damn dumb, and you set it so tight
you cannot override it by hand, then you are going to have a
wreck. Simple as that.
And that guy did. He set the thing so tight, he came to a
corner, and he could not slow down. He went off the road, and
he lost his leg. He is lucky he did not lose his head. But
somewhere along the line, he should have had some training.
I do not know whose responsibility that is, but it seems to
me that that is one of the things that we need to focus on. The
other thing, too, is this whole issue of helmets and I support
the use of helmets with the youngsters and certainly beginners.
I do not use them myself, never got used to the things, unless
by law, I have to.
But you probably know that no manufacturer, at least not to
my knowledge--I have not seen one manufacturer that will
guarantee them over 15 miles an hour. So what the heck good
does it do?
I got in a wreck some years ago and I hit some gravel and
when I went to the hospital--I broke my arm. And the doctor
asked me if I was wearing a helmet. And I said, ``On my arm?''
I mean, you know, there is a lot of different kinds of ways of
getting hurt on those things.
But I used to fly too, and sometimes I think that there are
two people that are suicidal: Those who fly when they are
drinking, and those who ride motorcycles when they are
drinking.
Maybe when you drive a car, it is considered bad judgment.
But when you are riding a bike, it is stupid and crazy to do
that. Somewhere along the line, more of that has to be done in
training and I just want to encourage NHTSA to do more of that.
And certainly from my standpoint on the committee--I will
not be quite as hard on President Bush as the Chairwoman was.
But I agree with her that we do not have enough money in this
budget, for safety training. And I would just want to tell you
that I am going to do everything I can to try and make sure it
is increased.
Let me just ask--I will not ask anything about motorcycles.
Really, I just wanted to point that out.
But I am also interested since last year, as you remember,
we got in a terrific fight and the Chairwoman and Senator
Shelby and I and several others really opposed the section of
NAFTA that would allow Mexican trucks to come north into the
U.S.
Well, they are coming, as you probably know. That has been
settled. And they are coming. And there has been some safety
restrictions put on how they operate and so on.
But my question is: Is NHTSA anticipating that influx of
Mexican trucks? And if they are, what are you doing to network
with other agencies? Because a lot of the things that we saw in
testimony and comments when we were dealing with this last year
was that there is very poor training on the part of the drivers
from Mexico; sometimes a lot of mechanical errors. They do not
keep their log books. All that stuff, that will not be under
NHTSA's jurisdiction, but it seems to me there has got to be
some kind of interaction.
Dr. Runge. Thank you for your question, Senator Campbell. I
can tell you that this issue is extremely important to the
Department. Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson has taken a very
personal interest in this, and has devoted a lot of time to
coordinating the agencies responsible for the different pieces
of this puzzle.
Our responsibility has to do with the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards. I can assure you that it is our position that
the trucks that come into this country need to be as safe as
the trucks that are already here in this country, and that we
will ensure that they do meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.
Our piece of those rule makings has been completed, and the
Department will coordinate their release with those of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
SHARE THE ROAD
Senator Campbell. All right. Speaking of safety, in the
2002, Transportation Appropriations Bill, we had some language
included that provided additional funding for what was called
``no zone, share the road.'' It was an educational program that
it dealt with truck driver fatigue and also it was to try to
educate people of the dangers of getting too close when they
turn, things of that nature. Do you know the status of that
funding request?
Dr. Runge. Actually, Senator, that is under the authority
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Senator Campbell. Okay.
Dr. Runge [continuing]. It is not ours, although we do have
a great interest in that as well. I have seen the trucks, and
they look good.
Senator Campbell. Yes. Well, okay. Maybe I should address
some of these questions to the Federal Motor Carriers Safety
Administration rather than NHTSA, but I thought you might have
some comments about it. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chairman.
IMPAIRED DRIVING PROGRAM
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Campbell. We will have a
hearing on the Mexican truck issue late spring/early summer as
well.
Dr. Runge, alcohol-related fatalities were steadily
declining from over 17,000 deaths in 1995 to just under 16,000
in 1999. But in 2000, we saw an increase in the number of
fatalities. There were 677 more alcohol-related fatalities than
in 1999.
The alcohol-related fatality rate in my own home State of
Washington is 10 percent higher than the national average, and
I find that really unacceptable. But I also find it
unacceptable to cut NHTSA's core impaired driving program by 22
percent below last year.
Can you explain to this committee why you decided to cut
the funding for your impaired driver program at a time when
alcohol-related fatalities are increasing?
Dr. Runge. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the chance to speak
about that.
As I think you know already, I am committed to this issue.
The Department--NHTSA was asked to submit a level budget
request. Our base level lacked the $2 million that that your
Committee gave us for repeat offender programs. So, from base
level, it actually, does not represent a decrease. It is flat
funding. Is that sufficient to----
Senator Murray. My reading of the budget is that the
impaired driving program is cut by 22 percent.
Dr. Runge. Right. We submitted a flat fiscal year 2003
request over our request from fiscal year 2002. What was
actually enacted for fiscal year 2002 was higher.
Senator Murray. So you did not look at what the Committee
did.
Dr. Runge. Yes, ma'am. Actually, as I understand it--and I
just came in August, the 2002 budget came rather late in the
2003 cycle. As I understand it, the fiscal year 2003 machine
started running before the Committee's fiscal year 2002
enactment actually occurred.
Senator Murray. So if this Committee were to increase
funding for that this year, you would go back to where you were
2 years ago and go flat again for a year from now?
Dr. Runge. Well, let me say that we would use that very
efficiently, I promise you. However, I think you said it
earlier, if the resources can be found. I believe that we have
a budget that reflects our priorities. I can promise you, also,
that the money that we have this year will be spent very
efficiently. We will use the crosshairs rather than the wide
choke on the shotgun.
SEAT BELT USE IN ALCOHOL-RELATED CRASHES
Senator Murray. Can you share with this Committee what
NHTSA's research shows about the use of seat belts for
individuals involved in alcohol-related crashes?
Dr. Runge. I am not sure exactly what you mean. I can tell
you they work as well as they do for sober people.
Senator Murray. Marion Blakey, do you know?
Ms. Blakey. I do not know. If I am understanding, the
question is if we are talking about people who are impaired,
their percentage of seat belt use----
Senator Murray. Right.
Ms. Blakey. I do not know those figures. Now, we can
certainly get them, I believe, for you.
Millie, can you address that?
Senator Murray. My understanding is that people who are
alcohol impaired are much less likely to use their seat belts.
Dr. Runge. Oh, that is correct.
Ms. Blakey. That is true. I just do not know what
percentages it is.
Dr. Runge. I am sorry. I did not know that that was what
you were asking. Yes.
Senator Murray. Yes. Okay.
Millie, maybe you can help us here. Why do you think there
is a spike in fatalities in 2000?
Mrs. Webb. Well, I think America has, you know, really
become complacent. And when I--especially this morning when I
heard your remarks, I think we need to have some real education
when it comes, you know, perhaps maybe to the Administration.
I deal on a regular basis with friends and loved ones who
are battling cancer. But as a victim advocate, and I--you know,
I heard you mention the figures, figures of 20 percent
increase, yet a--but not that kind of increase for highway
safety. And, you know, we have seen 7,000 people die by drunk
drivers just since September the 11.
But, you know, as a victim advocate, many years I have
worked with victims and, you know, what we have got to make
Americans realize is that if they are on the roadway, they are
a potential victim. And you can--you know, you can have the
research all day about cancer but, you know, I have worked with
victims whose loved ones survived cancer only to be killed by
drunk drivers. I have been in States where someone who just
received a liver transplant is killed by a drunk driver.
You know, we have got to make Americans realize that that
is the number one killer that is out there. If you are on our
roadways, you are a potential victim. It seems like we still
have a lot of education that needs to be done.
Senator Murray. Where would you direct the impaired driving
funds, if you could?
Mrs. Webb. Well, I would begin with the sobriety
checkpoints. We have seen in States how efficient and how it
has worked in my home State of Tennessee. And in Tennessee we
saw a 20 percent reduction.
And the thing about that is sometimes we are not successful
in some of these States in getting some of the key legislation
that we know will save lives like .08 and administrative
license revocation. But in my home State of Tennessee, we saw a
20 percent reduction out there each and every week.
People knew that there was that chance that they might be
arrested. That is the deterrent factor. And we saw months after
that that they would still have the deterrent factor, because
they still thought they were going on.
So it is effective. We know it is. This enforcement is so
effective. I think that would be the perfect way to start.
Senator Murray. Did you have a comment you wanted to add?
Mr. McMahon. I agree fully. And when you talk about
sobriety checkpoints, whether it is local or State agencies,
with all of the other functions they have, that has to bring a
certain number of enforcement officers together, and it is
usually in addition to their patrol duties. And that is where
funding levels are needed to do that. But they have, not only
the psychological impact, but the enforcement impact.
On the other hand, enforcement is the key in there, and it
cannot just be at sobriety checkpoints. And unfortunately in
many areas in the country, the sobriety checkpoints are the
only time the enforcement is happening.
So you need to have that 7 by 24, because there are people
being killed by drunk drivers in between those enforcement
areas. And that is critical. And I am seeing that in many other
specialty areas that it is only happening--and that is where
leadership comes in, more than money.
Senator Murray. All right. Go ahead.
Mrs. Webb. Another thing that we need to think about, you
know, we hear so much about homeland security. The sobriety
checkpoints is where Timothy McVeigh was apprehended. And so,
we need to think about it in that respect too, not just to
deter drunk drivers, but to help us with our homeland security.
UNSPENT ALCOHOL PROGRAM FUNDS
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Dr. Runge, let me go back to you for another question.
NHTSA also administers grant programs to the States for various
alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures, and according to your
staff, at the end of 2001, there was more than $75 million for
alcohol programs that remained unspent by the States from
previous years. How do you explain that enormous unspent
balance?
Dr. Runge. Well, as you know, Senator, we have Regional
Administrators who are in ten regions in the country. They work
very closely with the States, with the governors'
representatives for highway safety. Our role is to give them
best practices that have been developed through our traffic
safety program office and to help deploy them.
We have no control. Congress gave the States the authority
to spend what they wanted, when they wanted, and that seems to
be what they do.
Sometimes they get their funds late in the year so there is
money remaining at the end of the fiscal year.
Sometimes they save money for larger projects and, frankly,
sometimes they do not tell us. They have to tell us how much
money they have, but not necessarily what their plans are. So
there are legitimate reasons for that.
Frankly, there are some States that we would prefer would
implement our best practices as soon as they get the money,
rather than wait. In some cases, there are contractor problems.
But it is really up to the States how and when to spend
those funds. They are----
Senator Murray. What is your office doing to make sure
these dollars actually get used for alcohol countermeasures?
Dr. Runge. We are in the position to give them information
and to cajole them and to advise them. We cannot make them. We
have had discussions over the last few weeks about a solution
for that, which I would be happy to discuss with you.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Dr. Runge. It is going to have to wait for reauthorization.
I really do not want to get into the specifics right now until
we flesh it out a little bit better, but I would be happy to
discuss that with you when----
Senator Murray. As a way to help move the States to----
Dr. Runge. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Yes, I would be very interested in hearing
that.
Mrs. Webb, you mentioned in your testimony that only 17
percent of the funds, and it says ``Section 402 State and
Community Programs,'' are being used for alcohol-impaired
driving countermeasures. And you said that overall only 26
percent of all the safety grant and incentive funding is going
for alcohol-related countermeasures.
From MADD's perspectives, where are the States prioritizing
these funds?
Mrs. Webb. Well, it varies from State to State. What we are
seeing is that some States use their funds for good programs,
while other States do not. We have seen in many States--we have
been very disappointed that we have not seen the use of open
container laws enacted, or those kind of programs enacted. And
a lot of that funding has been used for road construction,
highway construction.
Senator Murray. Should NHTSA take a stronger hand in making
sure that that is enforced?
Mrs. Webb. Well, I think what anything that we can all do,
anything that we can do as a partnership to stop the drunk
driving deaths and injuries on our roadways will be effective.
Senator Murray. Okay. Let me talk about the repeat
offenders, because about a third of all the drivers arrested or
convicted were repeat offenders. These individuals are over-
represented in fatal crashes and less likely to be influenced
by education and by legal sanctions.
TEA-21 requires States to enact repeat offender laws or
face reduction of highway funds from highway construction to
safety or hazard elimination programs. To date, just over half
the States have enacted repeat offender laws.
Ms. Blakey, the NTSB put out a report a few years ago on
the issue of hardcore drunk drivers and recommended that NHTSA
consider changes to TEA-21 to better assist the States in
addressing the hardcore drunk driver program.
What does NTSB recommend for getting repeat offenders off
the road?
Ms. Blakey. Well, essentially, NTSB believes that a system
is needed. It is a combination of things that need to be put in
place.
Number one, the States need to put a priority on the high
BAC and repeat offenders in terms of the way they are treated
in the law itself. And this is not just in terms of
convictions. It also ought to be an administrative action as
well, recognizing those individuals, screening for them and
then assessing whether there is a real alcohol problem there
that requires treatment. And in those cases, there should be
mandatory treatment. The States should step up to the plate on
that.
We also think there should be vehicle sanctions. We--
alcohol interlock works. Interlock devices on automobiles work.
And we have seen over time that the States where they use them,
it is an essential part of dealing with these very difficult
drivers.
Also there are other things such as confiscation of the
vehicle, confiscation of plates. And for the very hardcore
offender, we also think it is important to have home
confinement. Our jails are full. There are problems in terms of
imprisonment.
But if you look at the issue of home confinement, we now
have the technology. It really can make that a very effective
way of monitoring the behavior, ensuring treatment while the
person is under confinement and really sometimes turning those
lives around.
Senator Murray. What has been the biggest impediment to
getting States to implement these kinds of sanctions?
Ms. Blakey. I think one of the biggest problems honestly is
that there is a patchwork of laws out there. States over time
have really tried, but they have not recognized the repeat
offender and the hardcore driver as a very separate problem and
one that has to be looked at comprehensively. So you have got
this patchwork, and sometimes the laws work well together, and
sometimes they do not.
We also know that administrative sanctions, not just
relying on the judicial system, but looking at it through the
Department of Motor Vehicles and looking at what can be done
immediately to confiscate licenses and put these people on a
track that really focuses on their problem.
The States need to do that. And I think they are coming to
recognize that addressing this particular part of the drinking
driver problem, they can do better and comprehensively.
And we have seen some States who are doing a very good job.
I think Michigan is one of them. Well, I could go through
several.
Senator Murray. Mrs. Webb, your organization has focused a
lot on this. What can you tell us what you think the biggest
stumbling block in getting States to enact repeat offender laws
is?
Mrs. Webb. Yes, ma'am. You know, in order to effectively
address repeat offenders, States need to have comprehensive
laws and they need to make sure that those laws include license
restrictions and ignition interlock and other vehicle
sanctions--you know, confinement and alcohol assessment and
treatment as well.
All too often, we see legislators that think that that is
too harsh but, you know, consequently what we see is enacted in
many States are a watered-down, piecemeal form that, do not,
completely address the problem. They are ineffective. So we
need more political will in the States and/or tougher laws at
the Federal level.
ORIGIN OF IMPAIRED DRIVING PROBLEM
Senator Murray. We we have funded the National Driver
Register Program for years and we still are hearing about
terrible, terrible tragedies caused by repeat offenders.
I would just like to ask the entire panel: Where does the
problem lie? Is it the States, the National Driver Register, or
with the judicial system?
Dr. Runge. I would love to begin----
Senator Murray. Fine.
Dr. Runge [continuing]. To address that, Senator. You very
excellently characterized the problem. Chairman Blakey
mentioned a patchwork of laws. As Senator Campbell said
earlier, in many circumstances, impaired driving of a
motorcycle may be viewed as suicidal, whereas driving a vehicle
while impaired is viewed as poor judgment.
In fact, it is homicidal. We have regarded this problem
with a wink and a nod in this country for as long as I can
remember, with the exception of a few people in the law
enforcement community and the advocate community and a few
public policy leaders who stuck their necks out to say ``Enough
is enough.''
NHTSA has developed best practices through the innovative
alcohol programs and so forth, and yet we sit back and watch
the States failing to enact what we know to be best practices.
There are problems in some States with checkpoints that are
Constitutional in nature. But the fact is that checkpoints
work. I think our estimate is a 23 percent effectiveness, and
that is double-digit effectiveness for something that is very
simple.
Superintendent McMahon understands this. New York's
impaired driving programs are self-funding. There is an
incentive to enforce the impaired driving laws.
Charlotte, North Carolina, runs a DWI court where every
repeat offender goes into a court--just like a drug court, with
a judge and social workers who follow them along, get them into
treatment and supervise them, just as if they were on
probation.
There are multiple best practices out there, if we could
just get the political will in this country to do something
about it.
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP NEED
Senator Murray. Political will at the States level?
Dr. Runge. Well, it takes leadership, I think, at the
national level. You know, the good news is that we live in a
federation. The bad news is we live in a federation.
I think when you drive your kids to Disney World, you
should be as safe going through South Carolina and Georgia as
you are in North Carolina and Virginia. This is a national
issue. This is not an issue for the States to decide whether or
not they are going to aggressively prosecute and enforce drunk
driving laws.
It is going to require national leadership and a national
change in the way we think about this particular problem.
Senator Murray. Does anybody else want to add to that?
Mr. McMahon. I agree with Dr. Runge. It needs a national
change in how we look at impaired driving, whether it is the
initial, whether it is the underage, or whether it is the
repeat offender who is definitely in no question, the leading
problem in that.
As I said earlier, there is an apathy setting in, whether
it is with legislators--I mean, all you have got to do is look
at the advertising that is going on. And is there any wonder
that kids are drinking what they are, that they are drinking?
When it comes to the repeat offender and tough sanctions,
there are legislators who feel that you are impacting on a
family, and they weaken down the laws. There is courts that
feel there is an overload, so they plea bargain down.
And I often look at it if--and I agree with it, if you are
a police officer and you are involved in a domestic violence
incident, your gun is gone and your job is gone. But if you
have got three and four DWI convictions and they have been
reduced down or something, and then we hear this, ``Well, you
know, his family is going to be impacted,'' and it gets reduced
down.
I mean, I do not understand, you know, the ``Go after the
law enforcement's job,'' which I agree, but to let this person
continue to drive, continue to--potentially, there will be an
accident that is eventually going to kill someone.
And when that happens, and when we cannot get those kinds
of laws through and throughout the State, because I talk to my
counterparts--how do we as leaders then tell our troopers or
patrolmen, ``This is important. Get that person off the road.
Be out there looking for them?'' And then it goes in and gets
reduced down. Nothing happens. The person is back driving
again.
And part of the issue on the repeat offender, where there
needs to be some kind of standard from State to State is those
that are driving while they are revoked for alcohol offenses,
that should be equally as serious. Cars should be seized.
Plates should be seized at the scene. But that should be
considered equally as serious as those that are--the repeat
offender that is driving with a license again on that in the
alcohol related areas. And that is not being addressed.
Ms. Blakey. I would mention one other problem in this, and
that is that we are seeing an increase in refusing to take
blood alcohol tests. So that--we have test refusals out there
where people know that they will actually have a lower sanction
by simply not taking the test than being convicted on an
alcohol-related offense. We think that needs to be addressed as
well.
So you have issues before the judiciary. You have issues
before the State legislatures. And certainly you all will have
an opportunity too with the next version of TEA-21--Next-T,
whatever we are terming it--I think to really set some
leadership there in terms of the hard-core drunk driver with
some of these best practices that Jeff and others have talked
about that really do work.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Senator Campbell, do----
Dr. Runge. Senator, can I add one thing?
REPEAT OFFENDER FUNDS
Senator Murray. Yes, absolutely.
Dr. Runge. You touched earlier on the repeat offender money
that the Committee wanted us to spend this year in 2002. Our
earmark this year focuses on educating judges and prosecutors
and trying to let them know what is available, interlocks, DWI
courts, and so forth.
As Superintendent McMahon mentioned, this is a critical
piece of the system, that we think has been neglected, and we
appreciate the opportunity to do that.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My father was an alcoholic. And, boy, I am going to tell
you: All I remember from when I was a kid was how alcoholism
can just literally destroy a family. And so I do not drink
except an occasional beer on the 4th of July. I do not need it.
But I used to be a police officer years ago, and I guess
because of my own background and the experience I had in law
enforcement, I am convinced that alcoholism is a sickness that
you just cannot cure by tougher penalties. It does not work. It
did not work for my dad. And it does not work for anybody else
either.
And the trouble with just simply increasing penalties is
that you backlog the courts; you need more manpower; you
overcrowd the jails. You do all these things that you have got
to be prepared to pay for and probably does not cure it anyway,
because when the guy comes out of all that, he will go back to
drinking unless he has had some treatment.
So it just seems to me that we ought to be focusing more of
our resources on treatment and recovery programs too. I do not
know if you were watching television last night Madam
Chairperson, but there was a part on CBS, Dan Rather, and I
think it was on all channels last night, a recent study about
teenage drinking in the United States. It said one-fourth of
all liquor in the United States now is being consumed by
teenagers, one-fourth by teenagers.
And I would assume that those teenagers also are having
higher incidences of accidents, if they are doing that much
drinking. It also said that the teenagers--in the survey of
these teenagers, they said they get involved in binge drinking
at least once a month. Tougher penalties are not going to fix
that. Something has to kick in about education for those young
kids too.
I am on the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, and we
put an awful lot of money into drug abuse programs, into a
national television campaign. We put over half a billion
dollars, in fact, the last 4 years on trying to get youngsters
to leave drugs alone. And I think that we probably ought to be
doing something in the same way along the lines of alcohol too,
trying to do some kind of a massive program to convince kids
that they do not need it.
But I guess the question I wanted to ask is in two parts.
One, what responsibility do you believe the industry has in
this? Maybe, Mrs. Webb, maybe you would like to participate in
that.
You know, for instance, in our State, one of the largest
beer breweries in the country is Coors Beer. I think they have
a very responsible program. They encourage not driving if you
are drinking. They encourage moderate use and careful use of
drinking beer, which is not nearly as bad as some of the hard
liquors.
But what should industry be doing and what should we do if
we have to get involved in trying to make industry do
something?
Mrs. Webb. Well, what we need to see is responsibility. And
certainly there are--I have seen a few of Coors' ads and they
are certainly responsible, but you have to look at the other
side of the scale for those that are not, those that depict
frogs and cartoons and, you know, we hear--we see a lot more of
those.
The entire industry does. And the broadcast networks need
to be responsible. We need to see the same kind of high
standard set for not just wine and liquor, but--hard liquor,
but for the beer industry as well. We need to make you know,
our children are being bombarded on a daily basis.
But, you know, what you mentioned about young people and
alcoholism and their drinking, you know, MADD realizes that,
our young people--you know, you are so right when you said that
our young people are drinking at an earlier age, and so we have
now tried to educate young people.
And we now have a new program, ``Protecting You and
Protecting Me,'' which educates our young people beginning in
grades one through five about the real damage that drinking can
do to the brain. And it encourages them to let that brain be
the best that it can be and let them then grow to the potential
in which they deserve to be.
It also talks--you know, we have mentioned today about the
fact that two-thirds of the young people that are killed are
killed by someone that is--an adult that has been entrusted to
their care. And this tells them, what to do--you know, buckle
up--be safe.
We have got to start at a young age, and that--I think that
will help you with that question when you ask about ``How are
we going to deter young people?''
Senator Campbell. Yes. That study, by the way, also
mentioned that the effects of alcohol on youngsters is worse
than adults, that it actually destroys part of the brain in
youngsters that it does not with adults.
Mrs. Webb. That is exactly what this ``Protecting You,
Protecting Me'' educational curriculum is based on, the fact
that the brain is hurt.
Senator Campbell. Yes. And maybe one final question, too,
of Mrs. Webb: There are gizmos now, and I do not know what they
are called. But you cannot start your car.
Senator Murray. Interlocks.
Ms. Blakey. Interlocks.
Senator Campbell. What are they called? You have to breathe
into--I do not know--some kind of a thing where you cannot
start it if there is alcohol on your breath. And I do not know
how that works. It is some system. But would you recommend that
manufacturers have those required on the cars by law?
Mrs. Webb. Well, we would like to submit to you our high-
risk driver program, which includes--a part of that program is
ignition interlock.
But also you mentioned earlier about your father being an
alcoholic. You know, we, too, know that we cannot just have
punishment. We know that there has to be mental health care and
assessment, not just go in and go out, but regular, you know,
monthly assessment by caretakers, you know.
No one is happier than Mothers Against Drunk Driving when
those people turn their lives around. And I think if you will
study our high BAC and repeat offender program, which has had
the support of the NTSB and NHTSA, I think you will be very
happy about it. And maybe it would have prevented some of the
tragedy that your life has held.
Senator Campbell. Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
SEAT BELT GOAL REVISION
Senator Murray. Thank you. Let me talk about some of the
safety goals for 2003 for a minute.
Dr. Runge, as I said in my opening statement, you lowered
your seat belt goals from 87 percent in 2002 to 78 percent in
2003. And your 2003 budget proposes to cut core occupant
protection programs and Click It or Ticket program by a total
of 51 percent.
How do we justify lowering the goal and cutting the budget
when over 40,000 people die on the highways every year, and
seat belt use is the number one preventative measure that we
have?
Dr. Runge. Thank you for the chance to clarify that. My
goal for seat belt use is 100 percent. It is 100 percent. There
should be no one riding around in this country without wearing
a seat belt or buckled into a child safety restraint.
What we have done is to try to create some targets that we
can actually measure for accountability for ourselves and for
our partners in the States, so that we actually look at a
realistic number of what we might expect to meet or exceed by
the end of fiscal year 2003.
The number of 78 percent was arrived at through two
methodologies, and they have both zeroed in on exactly the same
number. It has to do with the conversion of non-users.
If we convert eight and a half percent of non-users
throughout the States, we will arrive at a nationwide number of
78 percent. This is not backing away from a goal.
My goal is 100 percent seat belt use in this country. We
have 90 percent child restraint use for children under two now.
That is great. We know that it can be done.
Senator Murray. I am confused, because I thought the
Administration set goals beginning last year and that by 2005,
they had a goal of 90 percent.
Dr. Runge. That was actually set in 1995 in the previous
Administration.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Dr. Runge. And if you would look at the trend over time, it
is a goal that is not going to be met.
Senator Murray. So we just lower our expectation?
Dr. Runge. You can say that, but what it really does is
introduce some accountability. If we say 90 percent by 2005, we
do not have a hope of meeting that goal, so why try?
Let us put into effect a target that we can actually use
for accountability. It is based on good data and good science,
which with all due respect to those who were there making those
goals in 1995.
NEED FOR NEAR-TERM TARGETS
Senator Murray. Well, actually, I have to tell you,
Secretary Mineta was here a year ago in front of my Committee
and said that it was his goal.
Dr. Runge. Right. It has been Secretary Mineta's goal. We
looked at it this year and came up with the sound methodology
for--for having some near-term targets, not for 2005, but for
2003, of 78 percent.
Senator Murray. But the goal for 2003 was 87 percent,
correct? And we have now lowered it to 78.
Dr. Runge. Right. We are at 73 percent now.
Senator Murray. So are we just saying we just cannot reach
it, so we lower the goal?
Dr. Runge. Well, seventeen States have enacted primary seat
belt laws. If you look at States across the country with
secondary seat belt laws, there is no hope of getting to 85
percent across all those States.
Our data shows that they will generally cap at about 75
percent. So the emphasis has got to be, over the long haul, of
getting States to pass primary seat belt laws and getting
police officers to enforce those laws.
Senator Murray. Now, I----
Dr. Runge. That is the only way we are going to get there.
Senator Murray. I believe in realistic goals. But I also
believe when you lower your goals like that, you send a very
bad message about where priorities are and what your
expectations are for people.
Dr. Runge. That is why I am clarifying that. The goal is
100 percent. The target that we are trying to reach by the end
of 2003 is 78 percent, which is a generous increase over the 73
percent we have now. And, in fact, we are talking about a range
of 2,000 lives saved if we can get to that point, not to
mention mitigating scores and scores of injuries.
CLICK IT OR TICKET PROGRAM
Senator Murray. Let me ask you about a particular program,
the Click It or Ticket program. We provided $11 million for
that last year and we know that seat belt use jumped by 9
percent during the 2001 demonstration in the Southeast.
Your budget eliminates that funding. Why, when we know that
that works? That would help us reach the goal that we have out
there.
Dr. Runge. There is no question that high visibility
enforcement increases seat belt use. I will be coming back to
you through the normal processes once we have shown that this
methodology works.
I very much appreciate the cooperation of you and your
staff in working with us closely on this program. We have 12
States that are geographically and ethno-graphically diverse,
but we are going to put the cross-hairs on the more difficult
to convert people and recruit not just the State law
enforcement, but the local guys, the sheriffs. The local guys
have to be the ones to get the job done.
This is a ground war with air support. And the monies you
provide will allow that air support to occur through paid
media.
Once we have that methodology established, the high
visibility enforcement messages can sell not only in the
Southeast, but across the country. We will be taking aim at
that program in a nationwide campaign.
Senator Murray. Superintendent McMahon, New York has one of
the programs where we are doing this. Can you talk a little bit
about it?
Mr. McMahon. Yes. And I mentioned it. Let me, if I could,
Madam Chairwoman, speak to what you asked Dr. Runge there. I
was not familiar with the reduction, but I agree with
attainable goals. That is what ours was.
With the New York program, we had made it to 74 percent.
And we were stagnant because you have now reached who you are
going to reach with awareness and with education.
From 74 percent on, it is enforcement. You are at the hard
core. I have submitted a chart with my testimony, which shows
as comprehensive as our effort was, from 74 percent on, each
tenth wave of zero tolerance enforcement, we would go up two to
four percentage points in compliance.
Between those waves, even with continued enforcement, if it
was not there, we would drop down and maybe have a net gain of
between one and 2 percent. So from 74 percent on, you are going
to get--you know, it is going to be gradual. If you have got a
good enforcement program that involves all law enforcement, but
it is going to be a gradual, you are not going to see 10
percent jumps. You are not going to see 5 percent jumps at one
time.
That is with a primary State. Yet there is only 17 States
with primary laws. And you are not going to have strict
enforcement with secondary laws.
And the statistics are, I think, it is 15 percent higher
compliance rates in the primary States than the secondary
States. So I think that is much more obtainable, because if you
set goals that are not realistic, and then you do not meet
them, how do you go back to law enforcement?
One of the ways that I went to the State and locals, I
wrote every police chief, 540 of them, letters. We had our
troop commanders meet with every police chief and showed them
what this was about, saving lives. It was not about ticket
quotas. It was not about making money for the State. It was
about saving lives and it is the easiest way.
We had that goal. We hit it. Well, we missed it by seven
deaths. We hit 141. And we went back and showed everybody that.
And we had an award system for those departments that
participated. If I had set that at 90 percent, which I would
have liked to have been to, or 95 percent or 100 percent, I
could not have done that. Now, we are moving it up again. But
it is going to--it--when we hit that 90 percent, I might move
it up by one or 2 percent, because it is going to be harder and
harder as we go up in those gains.
So I agree with--I think the initial might not have been
attainable at all, especially when you only have 17 States with
primary laws.
TARGETING DIVERSE POPULATIONS
Senator Murray. Dr. Runge, let me go back to you for 1
second. When I talked in my opening statement, I talked about
the fact that black children ages five through twelve face a
risk of dying in a car crash that is three times as high as
white children; and the need to address motor vehicle deaths by
Native American populations.
I did not see any new initiatives obviously in your budget,
but is your agency looking at anything to try and address those
populations?
Dr. Runge. Absolutely. And you should know that part of the
Click It or Ticket campaign was in the Southeast and that we
are implementing it across the country. We have focused on
where we are going to get the biggest gains. I am a pie chart
kind of guy. If you look at the biggest possible gains, it is
very clear that we need to address the issues of minority belt
use and child safety seat use.
There are a host of infrastructure problems that need to be
addressed. These are not necessarily behavioral. They include
availability of seats, first of all, and vehicles that may not
be as crash-worthy and may lack the three-point restraints that
newer vehicles have.
But behaviorally, we have several contractors that we work
with to help us reach the minority populations and identify
what will make them respond behaviorally to do this.
The faith community has been a fabulous ally in the
Southeast. I think Superintendent McMahon has had the same
exact experience in New York. This is about saving your
children and taking care of your body.
It is not necessarily about getting a ticket. We are
looking at many programs that are culturally sensitive and that
take into account differences that we have in our very diverse
population.
We have a program that is called ``Corazon da Mi Vida.''
That is the best Spanish I can muster. It is, basically, ``You
are the center of my life.'' It talks about how you do not love
a baby by holding it in your lap. You love a baby by putting it
in the arms of a child restraint.
So, through programs like that, through the insight of many
people that we have been working with, we understand the
tremendous importance of that, and intend to use our resources
as wisely as we can in those areas.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that and look forward to
working with you on those initiatives. We are running out of
time and I am going to ask one more question, and then we will
adjourn for the day.
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
Dr. Runge, I am curious. The transportation appropriations
bills from the last several years have included language that
restricts the agency's ability to lobby on legislation that is
pending before State legislatures. Do you believe those
restrictions have impeded NHTSA's ability to get its agenda
done?
Dr. Runge. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Senator Murray. If that was not in place, would you intend
to travel the State legislators to try and advocate for some of
the things we have talked about today?
Dr. Runge. I have talked to several of your colleagues,
both on the House side and the Senate side about the nature of
that. I understand how it happened.
I think some of it was due to some possibly over-zealous
materials and some things that resulted in some push back from
Congress.
Having said that, the fact is that we have 17 States with a
primary belt law. The States can currently request information.
They can request an appearance, but unless they do, we are
basically forbidden from getting them the information that they
need, once a bill is introduced, to come down on one side or
the other.
I absolutely would welcome the opportunity to talk with our
colleagues in the States and bring them the technical
information that they have been paying for over the years that
will--that will give them the data that they need to pass good
sound public policy. It is a long yes.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
And thank you, all of you, for coming today on this
important topic. We are recessed until a week from tomorrow,
Thursday.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, February 27, the
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]